Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Death of a Member

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Martin Stevens, esquire, Member for Fulham, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Docklands Light Railway

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the proposed westward extension of the docklands light railway to Bank station.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I discussed this matter with the chairman when I met him on 12 November. I and my officials are in close touch with him.

Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the principle that applies privatisation to rail transport is very much welcomed on this side of the House? When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he convey that sentiment to him, and will he wish the project every success?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree entirely with him that it is a very important breakthrough that the provision of public transport can now be contemplated in the private sector. I shall certainly convey what my hon. Friend has said to the chairman of LRT, who I know shares his and my view.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the westward extension will go ahead only if the Canary wharf project goes ahead first?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when the STOLport, of which the docklands light railway will be a feature, will take effect?

Mr. Ridley: There are no proposals for the extension of the docklands light railway east to the STOLport from the central section, which is currently being constructed. The date when STOLport will go forward is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that it will go ahead, but he must give the precise time.

Roads Policy

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his roads policy, in the light of the National Economic Development Office civil engineering report: "A Fairer and Faster Route to Major Road Construction".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): My right hon. Friend made an interim response to the Economic Development Committee last March. Consideration of the report is almost complete and we hope to give a full response to the EDC in the near future. The response will be published and I shall send my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's objective—there is plenty of scope for doing this—ought to be to expedite public inquiries into major road proposals and that this can be done without any loss of rights by those who are adversely affected or who make representations? Furthermore, will he confirm that it would be possible for the Government to improve the compensation paid to those who are adversely affected without any extra call being made upon public funds, provided that the consultations and the procedures could be expedited?

Mr. Spicer: I cannot prejudge our response to the Economic Development Committee. However, we recognise that serious delays can be caused by planning procedures. We have to balance these against the rights of those individuals who are affected. We are looking at ways in which compensation can be improved.

Mr. Bruinvels: I recognise the need to speed up motorway and major road construction, but will my hon. Friend consider the need to monitor the working of these roads once they have been constructed? I have in mind the notorious cracks that arose on the M25 during construction.

Mr. Spicer: The answer has to be, yes. We certainly monitor roads after they have been built. That is one of the reasons why maintenance has been stepped up.

Severn Bridge

Mr Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outstanding debt on the Severn bridge at the latest available date.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): At 31 March 1984, some £46 million.

Mr. Hughes: Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State said a few days ago that the former Secretary of State for Defence ought to go because he had become an embarrassment to the Government, and bearing in mind also that this Secretary of State is so persistently flouting the law, is he not equally an embarrassment to the Government? Is it not simply ridiculous to impose a 150 per cent. increase in tolls on the Severn bridge when the Welsh economy is in such a parlous condition?

Mr. Mitchell: The judgment was not concerned with the level of tolls or the question which the hon. Gentleman has attached to that. It was concerned with procedural impropriety at the 1984 inquiry, and that is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Welsh economy needs assistance from public funds, which may well be so, that can far more clearly be provided through regional aid than through an indiscriminate subsidy to all road users on a particular stretch of road?

Mr. Mitchell: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Anderson: Surely the Secretary of State must realise the problems of attracting new industrial investment over the bridge. Why do the Government insist on persisting in a policy the certain effect of which is to place an additional obstacle before the regeneration of the Welsh economy?

Mr. Mitchell: It is by no means certain that the best use of such money would be to subsidise the tolls on the bridge rather than give more direct help to the Welsh economy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the steadily growing opinion in all shades of political views in Wales that the trouble of having tolls on the Severn bridge is by no means justified by the sums raised and that it would be far better to sweep them all away?

Mr. Mitchell: I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says, but a substantial debt has to be worked off, and that is slowly being done. By the year 2006 it will have gone. It would be wrong for us to ignore the extent of that debt and pretend that it does not exist.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister realise that there is no logic in the argument that on the one hand tolls should be retained and on the other that subsidies should be given by regional aid, particularly when the Government this year have already cut regional aid by 50 per cent.? Given the recent legal defeat, why does the Minister not realise that there is massive resentment on the Welsh side of the bridge against the tolls and that the Welsh people regard them as a block on industrial and commercial development? Why does he not take this opportunity to admit defeat and do away with the tolls altogether?

Mr. Mitchell: The question whether there should be tolls is different from that tabled today, but we have given notice of appeal against the judgment and perhaps we had better await the outcome of that.

Coaches (Speed Governors)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that speed governors on coaches will be required to be fitted; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Spicer: We expect to consult on draft regulations later this year with a view to requiring coaches that can exceed 70 mph starting to be fitted with speed governors in 1987.

Mr. Adley: I welcome the Government's decision to try to do something to control the increasing menace of coaches on our roads, but may I ask my hon. Friend, if he has not yet done so, to look at the recent Channel 4 programme called "Catching the coach"? Is he aware that it was made clear in that programme that the safety standards applied by coach operators in Britain are well below those of other countries and that the behaviour of some coach operators in using physical short cuts in many

of our towns and cities is just one of the problems that mean that we should have a full review of the way in which coach companies are using or abusing the law in a whole area of activity at the moment?

Mr. Spicer: I have not seen the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall do so. I agree about the sense of urgency that this matter requires, but before introducing the necessary regulations we must be sure that the devices work properly and safely and are calibrated and sealed.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend knows that we shall all welcome the introduction of the governors on coaches, but what will the Government do about the drivers who are able to drive lethally often when they are inadequately trained and qualified and moonlighting?

Mr. Spicer: If the drivers are not obeying the law they will be prosecuted.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the safety provisions of the alternative transport systems put forward in the prospective Channel tunnel schemes.

Mr. David Mitchell: Concerns about safety have been included in a number of letters from members of the public and representative and voluntary bodies. Safety has, of course, been at the forefront of the Government's assessment of the schemes.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that there is strong concern about the safety aspects of any Channel tunnel, whether rail or road, and the problems of satisfactorily dealing with an accident should it occur under the middle of the Channel? We want to be sure that if the project goes ahead such problems can be dealt with and that there will be adequate safety measures and facilities to deal with them.

Mr. Mitchell: The question of the results of accidents and how to deal with them is covered by the assessment.

Mr Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been receiving a great amount of flak recently from my constituents for having given support to the idea of a fixed link? Has he any safety provisions—not for me, because I can easily get a flak jacket, as they are readily available these days—but for my consitituents, who are properly concerned about the possible destruction of the Kentish environment that the project might produce?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is rather wide of the question.

Mr. Mitchell: The environment has been one of our major considerations, in which we have been assisted by an outside assessor. I assure my hon. Friend that the problems for his constituents and for all people living in one of our most beautiful counties have been taken into account.

Mr Stephen Ross: As the Channel Expressway is being reported as one of the two runners for this contract, will the Minister assure us that he is taking into account the problems of a 31-mile road link, the ventilation for that road, the extraction of carbon monoxide and the danger of an accident in such a tunnel?

Mr. Mitchell: Assessments have covered ventilation and the particular circumstances that would arise if there were an accident in the tunnel leading to a build-up of stationary traffic, with the consequent effect on the carbon monoxide level.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister prepared to meet the North of England Regional Consortium to consider and respond in detail to its important views about the proposed link?

Mr. Mitchell: If those views are concerned with safety, of course I would be prepared to meet a deputation if the right hon. Gentleman wished to bring one.

Mr Harrison: On the safety considerations, will there be continuous adequate lighting in the tunnel, unlike the lighting provision on our motorways, especially the M1 and the M62, in both of which I have an interest?

Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the choice of project before he can have full details on such matters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In deciding on which type of link to have, taking into account the safety aspects, will the decision be made by the Cabinet after full discussion of the Secretary of State's recommendation, or by the Prime Minister by political prejudice? If the latter, are we to expect further ministerial resignations?

Mr. Mitchell: The decision will be made by the Prime Minister and the President of France on 20 January. As always, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consult her Cabinet colleagues before reaching a major decision.

Bus Fares

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the average increase in bus fares since 1979; what information he has as to the likely trend in bus fares in South Yorkshire in 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: The average increase in bus fares nationally since 1979 has been 84 per cent. In the same period, South Yorkshire county council has chosen to place the entire burden of mounting costs on its ratepayers rather than increase fares for passengers. Future bus fare levels in South Yorkshire will be a matter for the passenger transport authorities and for bus operators.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that when the Secretary of State announced his bus policy, he offered the House the firm prospect of better services and lower fares? Will not the result of Government policy be to push up fares in South Yorkshire by such an enormous amount that it will imperil our services?

Mr. Mitchell: South Yorkshire county council has pursued a high subsidy policy, which has meant that there has been no rise in fares for 10 years. Where a subsidy policy has been followed in that way there have been high rates, with all the consequences of that on employment and business, and the damage that it does to the community.

Mr. Parris: Does my hon. Friend agree that if politicians in South Yorkshire insist on increasing bus fares at one jump as a political gesture, instead of

gradually, as the professional busmen on South Yorkshire passenger transport want, it would be a cruel and unnecessary abuse of South Yorkshire's passengers?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The professional advice that must have been received by politicians in South Yorkshire is that they should already have started a gradual increase to carry their passengers with them. If they decide to play politics, the result will be a sharp rise in fares, a loss of passengers, and a consequent loss of jobs for those employed in the bus undertaking.

National Bus Company

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries.

Mr. Ridley: The process for the disposal of the NBC has now started. I have suggested to general managers that they and their staff should consider whether they wish to buy control of the companies for which they work. I understand that the NBC will be canvassing bids in the near future.

Mr. Ross: I read the Secretary of State's press statement on 9 December. What steps is he taking to prevent asset-stripping by possible purchasers whose prime intention may be speculative rather than to run a bus company?

Mr. Ridley: We are prepared to consider selling the companies with the property assets already removed and leased back to the companies, which would effectively avoid the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger of what is happening now where NBC subsidiaries, while still nationalised, are uncommercially underbidding the private sector for the bids that must be tendered shortly? Is he further aware that the private sector, unlike the public sector, cannot match those bids because it is not backed by public money, and it may be frozen out of routes which must be contracted for within a few weeks' time, and which will he operated later in the year only if they are contracted for? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not an equal or even-handed situation?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to strive for an equal and even-handed situation. However, it is not yet time for the receipt of tenders for unremunerative routes to local authorities. No tenders have yet been called for. If any publicly owned bus company were to contract at unviable rates, the consequences would fall on the company at a later stage, when it would find that it made losses as a result. Where managers may be taking a controlling interest in their company, they would wish to avoid that.

Mr. Gregory: When my right hon. Friend denationalises the NBC, will he consider breaking it into sufficiently small units so that as many employees as possible can participate in the purchase of shares? In that way, he will move from the present monolithic system to one where employees can receive benefits from the privatisation of the company.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. The expected break-up of the NBC will result in about 60 operating subsidiaries. I am happy to tell the House that more than two-thirds of them have already said that they want to mount bids for their company. My hon. Friend's point is well made.

Mr. Stott: If that is the case, can the Secretary of State guarantee those who are at present employed in the NBC that the pension provisions they enjoy will remain the same?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is no guarantee of the present pensions. There will be no formal guarantee of the pensions in future, but there are options before the trustees of the NBC pension funds which enable them to choose whether they prefer greater security to other considerations.

Railway Passenger Services (West London)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals for the withdrawal of any railway passenger services in the west London area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: The British Railways Board has proposed the closure of Marylebone station and the withdrawal of passenger services between Marylebone and Harrow on the Hill and Northolt Park stations. In reaching a decision on the board's proposal I and my right hon. Friend will take into account all relevant factors.

Mr. Greenway: In addition to objecting to the proposal to close the Marylebone-Northolt Park line, is my hon. Friend aware of British Rail's proposal to withdraw a third of the services to Hanwell and west London? Does he agree that British Rail is at present receiving a much higher subsidy in real terms than in 1979, in addition to having recently increased fares to Hanwell and elsewhere by 8 per cent.? Will he support me in demanding that British Rail retains a proper and full service for my constituents in Hanwell and west London?

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail intends next year to reduce suburban services from Paddington. These services are among the most lightly used and heavily loss making in the London area. It is for British Rail to determine what level of services to operate in the light of the broad financial and other objectives set by Ministers.

M25 (Dartford Crossing)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what factors he intends to take into account in meeting the demands for additional crossing capacity at Dartford on the M25; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will make these clear soon in an invitation to promoters to make proposals for a third crossing at Dartford.

Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware that that additional capacity at Dartford is urgently required? Will he take into account the fact that the present tolls on the Dartford tunnel will pay off the capital costs by the early 1990s and that it would be inappropriate for tolls to continue after that date?

Mr. Mitchell: I agree that the matter is becoming urgent, but consideration as to whether tolls should be applied thereafter would depend upon the method by which any additional crossing was financed.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the hon. Gentleman intend that only the third crossing will be privately owned and operated, or is it the Government's longer-term intention that the whole Dartford tunnel complex will be transferred from public to private hands?

Mr. Mitchell: It would not be precisely as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but more the latter than the former.

Mr. Squire: May I underline to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), that throughout most of the day the flow of traffic in either direction through the two Dartford tunnels is much higher than they were ever intended to carry? Even when the east London river crossing is constructed—if it is constructed—the central problem of Dartford will not be resolved.

Mr. Mitchell: I accept that capacity is important. It is one of the crucial factors in assessing the promotors' proposals, which we shall be inviting.

Shipping Cabotage

Mr. Sayeed: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any progress has been made in negotiations with his colleagues in the European Economic Community towards agreeing free acess to European Economic Community shipping cabotage; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: Almost all member states now accept the principle of early liberalisation but further negotiations will be needed on this and a number of other aspects of European Community shipping policy before regulations can be agreed. If negotiations are not successful within the next few months, I shall have to consider taking other steps to ensure fair and equal treatment for United Kingdom flag vessels.

Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he consider, as one of those steps, denying access to our shipping cabotage to those countries which improperly prevent our merchant vessels from enjoying freedom of their cabotage? In addition, will my right hon. Friend consider going to the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is inequitable that our cabotage is open to all members states of the European Community whereas, roughly speaking, the northern European states have agreed to open their cabotage to our vessels but the southern European states have not yet done so. I shall certainly have to take account of the two ways of proceeding which my hon. Friend suggests—either closing our cabotage to those countries which will not open theirs or proceeding through the European Court of Justice. I would prefer it if we could obtain agreement by negotiation this year. That would be the best solution.

Dr. Godman: Did the discussions on cabotage involve in any way the trade in offshore supplies in the North sea gas and oil industries? At the moment, Norway, which is not a member of the EEC, enjoys a clear lead over British maritime interests. Is the EEC conducting negotiations on Britain's behalf with Norway to restore balance to this trade?

Mr Ridley: The matters that the hon. Gentleman mentions touch upon the cabotage issue, although they are


slightly different, because Norway is not a member of the European Community. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport was responsible for those matters he succeeded in persuading the Norwegians to withdraw a charge for pilotage which discriminated against our fleet in favour of the Norwegian fleet. If there are any examples of unfair competition in the Norwegian part of the continental shelf I am prepared to pursue them further. I believe that it is better to have both markets open on fair terms rather than have both markets closed.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is wrong that these restrictions on competition within the EEC should exist so long after we joined? Will he fight that matter as strongly as he possibly can? He will have the support of both sides of the House in doing so.

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am glad to be able to tell the House that I reached a bilateral agreement with the West German Government that they will open their cabotage to us in practice. I intend to pursue this matter relentlessly with the other members of the European Community. At a meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers last week it appeared that my colleagues agreed that cabotage should be liberalised by at least 1992, but that was an informal meeting and I should like to see the agreement in writing.

Mr. Stott: I thank the Secretary of State for what he said to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) about this matter. I am not at all surprised that he is having some problems with the Greeks on this issue. As I understand it, the regulations concern the nationality of the company. In other words, they do not concern British companies which flag their ships out and whose ships are manned by foreign crews. When we achieve greater freedom of cabotage, will he ensure that it is carried out by British ships carrying British seamen, and not by British ships that are flagged out under flags of convenience?

Mr. Ridley: The Greek difficulty to some extent relates to defence and the Greek's ability to resupply islands off the coast of Greece for possible defensive action. We should seek to open up the cabotage of all member states of the Community to the fleets of those who fly the flags of the member states.

Airedale Route

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction work to commence on the A629/A650 Airedale route.

Mr. Michael Spicer: A decision will be announced very shortly on the outstanding statutory orders for the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section. The timing of the start of work depends on the decision.

Mr. Waller: When considering the speed at which future decisions about this road are reached, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the strongly held feeling in the whole of the Aire valley that the new road is vital to the area's future economic prosperity? Is he aware that plans and inquiries relating to this route have been going on for over 20 years, and that a long period has elapsed since the public inquiry on the side road orders relating to the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section?

Mr. Spicer: I am aware of the great interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this matter. I cannot, however, prejudge or prejudice the decision, which, as I have said, will be made soon.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise how important north-east Lancashire feels the completion of the Airedale route and the link of that route to the M65 and the M1 are, because it is important to have another east-west Lancashire to Yorkshire crossing?

Mr. Spicer: I am aware of the great interest that is felt about this road in the area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I must repeat that I cannot say anything that will prejudice the decision.

Docklands Light Railway

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what approaches he has received from potential future purchasers of the London docklands light railway.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have received two approaches, including the one from the consortium which plans to develop Canary wharf, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an announcement on 27 November.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that even if the western extension is built, about nine tenths of the route mileage of that railway will have been provided with public money? On what basis can there be private profit from public expenditure? Will the Minister reconsider the Secretary of State's decision not to require private operators to fit in with the system of travel cards and general traffic and fare levels which have been arranged by London Regional Transport?

Mr. Mitchell: The railway is not expected to make a profit. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that this is a case of public investment designed to create private profit. I am sorry to have to say that it will create a running loss.

Mr. Adley: Is there not cause for slight concern about the manner in which permission for the westward extension of this railway has been granted? Can my hon. Friend say whether I am right in assuming that the decision by the private operator to proceed was made only on the basis of his receiving planning permission at the other end of the line for a project which was originally rejected not only by the local authorities but by the Department of the Environment? Is this not a somewhat dangerous proposition?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Just say, "I do not know."

Mr. Mitchell: I was going to say that they are dependent one upon the other.

Fixed Channel Link

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received in his official capacity about the fixed Channel link; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: Approximately 1,700 letters about the Channel fixed link have been received since the promoters submitted their proposals on 31 October 1985. Of these, about 1,500 have been from members of the public.

Mr. Taylor: Does not this correspondence show that the public would much prefer a third Dartford tunnel to a Channel tunnel? Will the Minister issue a warning to innocent investors who might be tempted to put their savings into this project that if private enterprise funds run out before the project is completed, there is no question of the Government bailing out the project or their savings with taxpayers' money?

Mr. Ridley: In relation to the first question, I do not consider that 1,700 letters from a population of 54 million is statistically significant. Secondly, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that no public finances will be made available if either of the projects that might be selected runs into financial difficulties halfway through.

Mr. Dalyell: Since the Under-Secretary of State most courteously answered my Consolidated Fund debate on 19 December, have the Government got any further in considering the problems of microsleep, driver hypnosis, and what could happen if people attempt to drive from Edinburgh to France and are fatigued when they enter the tunnel and do nuttish things?

Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, those matters have been analysed and considered, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to await the decision and the White Paper that will follow it. It will be impossible to publish that White Paper on the day of the decision, because the decision must come first, and the White Paper must be written thereafter, but it will provide the answers to the hon. Gentleman's worries.

Mr. Colvin: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for not being here earlier when my question was called. How many letters has my right hon. Friend received about Britain's ability to fulfil its NATO defence commitments should the Channel fixed link lead to a reduction in our ferry fleet? What mechanism will be used to monitor the position as the impact of the Channel fixed link becomes clearer?

Mr. Ridley: I have received 19 letters on that subject, and I do not consider that 19 letters can be taken as expressing major national concern. The impact on the ferry fleet of any fixed link depends radically upon which fixed link is chosen. The White Paper will attempt to provide an analysis of the impact of our choice on the ferry fleet.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Secretary of State confirm that his noble Friend the Earl of Caithness advised the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers' Association that the Government intended to maintain a ferry service and fleet? How will that be done? Can he also confirm that no treaty between Britain and France will be signed before the House has had an opportunity to analyse and debate the White Paper?

Mr. Ridley: I am not sure what my noble Friend might or might not have said. However, the impact of any choice upon the ferry fleet and the defence consequences will be spelt out in the White Paper. Debates in the House are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Berkhamsted Bypass

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his best estimate of when construction of the Berkhamsted bypass will start.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Subject to the outcome of the outstanding statutory procedures, construction could start in the second half of 1988.

Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that many of my constitutents want the bypass to be built urgently? As there seems to be an increase in traffic along the existing road through towns and villages, will he ensure that the road is dual tracked?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right to imply that a revision of traffic forecasts caused the delay. He is also right to say that we are considering the whole question of dualling along that stretch of the road.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Latent Damage

Mr. Chapman: asked the Attorney-General when he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law relating to latent damage.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): It is hoped to introduce a Bill in the near future to amend the law of limitation in negligence cases involving latent damage, based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the disquiet among professional organisations in the construction industry that the proposed date of breach is vague and imprecise? Does he agree that that is the problem in existing legislation? Will he consider sympathetically the suggestion that the period of liability should begin on a date which is definite and leaves nothing to chance?

The Solicitor-General: I shall draw my hon. Friend's views to the Lord Chancellor's attention. The Government have accepted the Law Reform Committee's reasons for rejecting the date of completion approach. The date of completion would be difficult to apply to the many other types of cases, other than construction, for which legislation is intended. Moreover, date of completion might cause injustice in lengthy construction projects, when completion occurs many years after the relevant date of breach of duty.

Mr. Ryman: Regarding the law relating to latent damage, can the Solicitor-General confirm that he wrote a letter to the former Secretary of State for Defence accusing him of uttering a material inaccuracy?

The Solicitor-General: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but his question does not arise out of the main question.

Fraud Investigations (Manpower)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Attorney-General whether he now has any plans to increase manpower dealing with fraud investigations.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the House.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is increasing the number of lawyers on his staff who are assigned full-time


to fraud cases from the present 15 to a total of 24—a 60 per cent. increase. There will also be increases in support staff. It is especially important that those staff should have considerable relevant experience, and we are exploring the use of some form of short service contract so as to permit the recruitment, for this purpose, of experienced practitioners from the Bar and solicitors' firms.
I shall, of course, continue to monitor the position closely.

Mr. Dykes: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of hon. Members in all parts of the House and express the hope that he has recovered. I thank him for the answer. Does he now believe that, at long last, we have the basis, in terms of the number of people available, coupled with the Roskill recommendations, for a real and serious attack on the growing problem of fraud?

The Attorney-General: This involves the operation of the fraud investigation group. Roskill's first recommendation involves something even better than FIG and of course the Government will look closely at that. That might need even more resources, in which case I shall welcome them.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Attorney-General realise that he has a lot to live up to in view of his statement some months ago that the level of City fraud was unacceptable? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee that, based upon these new recruits, including lawyers, he will be able to state unequivocally—

Mr. Cormack: —and categorically.

Mr. Skinner: —and categorically, as well as without ambiguity, that Peter Cameron-Webb, who is now living in Miami, will be brought back to Britain to face charges that relate to him getting rid of a sum approaching £130 million? According to yesterday's newspaper reports, Cameron-Webb, along with Peter Dixon, made £13 million for himself. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee that law and order applies to people such as Cameron-Webb and Dixon as well as to those in the inner cities, and that they are subject to the law like the rest of the British people?

The Attorney-General: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question by giving him an idea of the resources that we are applying to the PCW and Howden frauds. There is the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring them back?

The Attorney-General: There is an assistant director and a professional officer —

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.

The Attorney-General: I shall come to it. There are two detective superintendents and other police and five counsel, including two QCs. The problem lies in tracing the funds so that we can ascertain who were the ultimate beneficiaries. There are several countries involved as well as a bank in Switzerland which was acquired by Howden. More than 1 million documents have been seized from Howden. There are extradition problems to face in getting back Cameron-Webb and others, and it may be that they are in Costa Rica and not Miami.

Mr. Skinner: The newspapers say that they are in Miami.

The Attorney-General: I do not mind what is in the newspapers. If Cameron-Webb is in Costa Rica, the House will be aware that we do not have an extradition treaty with that country. If he is in the United States—this applies to Cameron-Webb and to Dixon—the extradition procedure will be a lengthy business. Grob is another person who we would like to see back in this country . He has dual nationality—Swiss and British—and the Swiss do not extradite their own nationals.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that outside London the country forces have been dealing effectively with cases of long-firm fraud and fraudulent trading for many years and bringing those guilty of such offences to book, with the courts passing appropriate sentences?

The Attorney-General: Long-firm frauds are some of the easiest frauds to investigate and to prosecute. It is the much more complex frauds that have been causing difficulties. It is interesting that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed provincial police forces last year that if they wanted the assistance of FIG they had only to ask for it. A number of provincial fraud cases of great complexity—there are stock exchanges outside London—have been referred to FIG.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I extend a warm welcome to the Attorney-General on his return to our proceedings. I hope that he has made a full and robust recovery from his recent operation. In taking up the issues raised by the committee on fraud trials, is it now the Government's view that too few reported fraud cases are brought to trial, and that this is primarily because of a lack of resources? What consideration is being given to the issues of expertise that are raised in the report, especially the training in accountancy and information technology that is suggested for barristers and judges, and especially for fraud squad investigation officers?

The Attorney-General: I am very grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I feel very much better.
There has been a great deal of extra training in FIG. Lawyers, including counsel, have been to Lloyd's and learnt the reinsurance processs. They are now much more skilled. The purpose of FIG is to gain a highly skilled group of experts—lawyers, accountants and the rest—who are much better able to get on quickly with what we hope are better trained police officers. So far, FIG has been a great success story. Indeed, it has been so successful that it is almost overwhelming.

Official Secrets Acts

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the Director of Public Prosecutions' inquiry into alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act involving the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and Miss Sara Keays.

The Solicitor-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions announced on 7 January that there was no evidence available which could support a prosecution in respect of any infringement of the Offiial Secrets Acts arising out of this matter. In these circumstances, the


Director has decided to take no further action and has advised the Metropolitan police that no further inquiries by them are required.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the DPP or the police have access to the relevant Cabinet papers?

The Solicitor-General: No, Sir.

Mr. John Morris: In view of the principle of equality under the law, will the Solicitor-General consider prosecuting under the Official Secrets Acts those responsible for disclosing the contents of his recent letter to the Secretary of State for Defence? Can he assure the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to everyone. The question relates to a completely different matter.

Mr. Morris: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to ensure that the Official Secrets Acts are applied in the same way and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. But this question relates to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson).

Mr. Morris: Has the Director of Public Prosecutions been inhibited in any way in his inquiry into this or any other matter concerning possible breaches of the Official Secrets Acts? Can the Solicitor-General assure the House that the law will be applied equally, whether to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the press secretary at No. 10 or anybody else who leaks official documents?

The Solicitor-General: I am happy to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that, in the discharge of all of their functions, Law Officers exercise an independent and impartial judgment.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Programme

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase the amount of basic agriculture development work undertaken under the aid programme.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Agricultural development is at the heart of our bilateral aid policy. In devising our programmes we have to take account of the wishes of recipient countries, but we aim to increase the agricultural content whenever we can.

Mr. Beith: Has there not been a drastic reduction in the proportion of resources and the number of people employed under our aid programme giving essential aid to subsistence agriculture? Would not the reversal of that trend do a tremendous amount of good and go some way towards altering the bad impression given by the Government's new year honours list recommendations?

Mr. Raison: The proportion of British bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa used for agriculture and related purposes rose from 27 to 33 per cent. between 1979 and 1983. I have just seen extremely valuable agricultural work in the Sudan and the Yemen being carried out under the Government's auspices, which is strongly directed towards the poorer partners.

Mr. Prentice: Bearing in mind the appalling background of what has happened in sub-Saharan Africa, is there not an urgent need for Western aid donors to co-operate more closely to identify medium-term projects which could raise food production in that area? To what extent is that happening and what machinery is being used to further such steps?

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend is right. I assure him that co-ordination between donors is increasing all the time and that there is general agreement about the great importance of developing agriculture in those regions.

Aid and Trade Provision

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the aid and trade provision.

Mr. Raison: The new loan scheme announced to the House on 12 November by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry strengthens the existing aid and trade provision. We shall now be able to respond more flexibly to the preferences of developing countries and to match the practices of other donors.

Mr. Holland: The Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern about this matter and about the extent to which priority is being given to aid and trade schemes rather than rural development initiatives. What resources does he expect to go to the ATP? Is he really in the business of trade to aid development, or mainly in development to aid trade?

Mr. Raison: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the aid and trade provision was introduced in 1977 by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). The additions required over the next three years under the ATP provisions that are being extended to loans are £3 million in the first year, £10 million in the next year and £20 million in he third year. It is important to remember that under the aid and trade provision we provide development help to the countries concerned and we have provided about £1 billion of export orders for British industry over the past few years.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ELE company in my constituency has developed a portable water purification testing centre that is far in advance of anything elsewhere? That is a prime candidate for trade aid and could benefit employment in this country as well as helping people overseas.

Mr. Raison: I shall be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that company.

UNESCO

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 5 December about the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, what arrangements he has made for additional sums for work on soil and water management in arid or semi-arid areas.

Mr. Raison: I have allocated £400,000 per annum to support work on soil and water management in arid or semi-arid areas.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that, welcome though the allocation is, it does not fill the gap left by the


decimation of the Land Resources Development Centre, which was cut by the Prime Minister-inspired Rayner review three or four years ago? If the Government take African famine seriously, will they restore the resources for the centre at least to the level that existed before the cuts insisted on by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. The LRDC is an admirable body which is continuing to do admirable work.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In the wake of the decision to withdraw from UNESCO, will my right hon. Friend undertake to give the best support he can to the work of agricultural research institutes in this country, such as the national vegetable research station at Wellesbourne, which is doing work of proven value to Third world countries as well as to our own? Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Education and Science to do likewise?

Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend about the great importance of agricultural research. My Department certainly does all that it can to propagate that.

Sudan

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present amount of aid given by the Government to the Sudan.

Mr. Raison: British bilateral development aid to Sudan in the last financial year amounted to £27·5 million. We expect to spend about the same amount in 1985–86. We have also provided more than £29 million on bilateral famine relief for Sudan since October 1984, including over £10 million through voluntary agencies. Following my visit to Sudan earlier this month, I have agreed to make a further £5 million available through the Save the Children Fund, mainly to meet the costs of urgent food distribution in Darfur. In addition, I am allocating £200,000 to Oxfam for emergency work in the Red sea province and the south.

Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister very much for that reply, and especially for the fact that he has agreed to give money to the Save the Children Fund. In view of the superb work done by the fund in appalling conditions in Sudan, I am sure that his support will be warmly welcomed, not only in the House, but outside. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that the support will continue if the need exists.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He might like to know that the £5 million that I have just announced, together with another £1

million that I announced a short time ago, will make it possible to distribute within Darfur 110,000 tonnes of badly needed food.

Mr. Moynihan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that development projects such as the Equatoria region agricultural scheme, which he recently visited, are the sorts of projects that could be developed elsewhere in Sudan?

Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have just visited that project. It is an excellent project and it is the sort of thing that we are looking to do elsewhere.

Mr. Stuart Holland: One of the critical issues in the Sudan is whether there is adequate fuel for food aid distribution. What did the right hon. Gentleman learn about that on his recent visit? Shall we find, as we did last time, that he will be overtaken by Bob Geldof's transport convoys in getting the food distributed?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is being ludicrous about this matter. Bob Geldof has done a very good job, but the British aid programme to Sudan has made a substantial contribution, both short-term and long-term. One of the factors that we are examining is the provision of fuel wood.

Vietnamese Refugees

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support he has given to keep the Vietnamese refugees in the camps in Hong Kong in each of the last five years.

Mr. Raison: The Overseas Development. Administration has made the following contributions to the Save the Children Fund for its programme of assistance to Vietnamese refugees in camps in Hong Kong:—£15,000 in 1981; £10,000 in 1982; £9,000 in 1983; £14,000 in 1984 and £15,000 in 1985. In addition, the ODA makes an annual contribution of approximately £3·5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who also runs a refugee programme in Hong Kong.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister not accept that we in Britain have a great responsibility for supporting the Hong Kong Government in what they are doing for the Vietnamese in camps in Hong Kong? Does he accept also that the resources available are not adequate? He has only to look at the schools in the camps to understand that. Will he reconsider the possibility of Britain giving more support to those who need help?

Mr. Raison: I believe the facts show that we are already making a reasonable contribution. Indeed, the work that we are doing is fully appreciated.

Westland plc

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several times in recent weeks, Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have told the House that they took a completely dispassionate view of the affairs of Westland plc. Disagreement about that issue has now led to the resignation of a Cabinet Minister. Following his resignation, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Secretary of State for Defence, repeatedly made the grave allegation that the Prime Minister had been systematically following one course in the privacy of Government, while insisting both in public and in the House that she was following the opposite course—[Interruption.] The implications of that for the House are grave indeed—[Interruption.] They clearly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is putting a point of order to me.

Mr. Kinnock: When it is alleged that the Prime Minister has said one thing in private, but systematically said another in this House, the implications for this House are serious. They are that someone has been telling the truth, and that someone has not been telling the truth.
For that reason, I asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on the matter to the House today. The right hon. Lady refused. I believe that that is a craven evasion of her duty to the House and country. I therefore give notice that on Wednesday the Opposition will use their Supply day to debate these issues. During that debate I shall demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House and accounts for her role and her conduct in this matter of national importance. The Prime Minister can run, but she cannot hide.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that that matter is to be the subject of a statement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House to make a business statement.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I should like to make a short business statement—

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the Leader of the House to make a business statement.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point which was not a matter for me—as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter, not for me, but for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, who is very experienced in these matters, and the whole House know that the matter that was raised is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] Order. I have called the Leader of the House to make a statement on this very matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take any further points of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am not prepared to take any further points of order on this matter because that would tend to lead to a debate, which is not a matter for me.

Mr. Biffen: I should like to make a short business statement. In view of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, the business of the House for Wednesday will now be as follows:
Opposition Day, Third allotted day. There will be a debate on Westland plc, on an Opposition motion. Afterwards, a debate on a motion on the Statutory Sick Pay Uprating Order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall call him later.

Mr. David Steel: Presumably the business statement is open to question. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that every newspaper, every radio and television programme, and every pub in the land is discussing the issues that have arisen—[Interruption.]—from the resignation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This begins to sound like every pub in the land.

Mr. Steel: —of the Secretary of State for Defence? Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, as Leader of the House, to arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement on the wider issues, not on the narrow issues, which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for


Trade and Industry? The wider issues are Cabinet responsibility and the balance of defence procurements between Europe and the United States. If no such statement is forthcoming, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Prime Minister will participate in the debate that he has just announced?

Mr. Biffen: Obviously it will be within your competence, Mr. Speaker, to decide how wide the debate may go on Wednesday. However, I should be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were disappointed.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we may know the terms of the motion that we shall be asked to debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: The terms are not yet available, but they will be in good time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us from Scotland knew that part of the debate on Wednesday would be given over to the problem of the Gart—er [HON. MEMBERS:"—cosh."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We all suffer from slips of memory.

Mr. Wilson: Given my anger about the matter, it is hardly surprising that that should have happened. Why is the debate to be abandoned, particularly as people have been marching down from Scotland to England? When will we have a debate on that crucial matter, in which Scotland is far more interested than it is in the Westland Helicopters' problem?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand at once that the decision not to proceed with the debate was in the gift of the Opposition. I shall look at the wider issues that he mentioned.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take part in the debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend need not fret. He will not be disappointed.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Can the Leader of the House be a little more precise? Is he not aware that the statements made last week by the former Secretary of State for Defence have profound implications both for national security and for the whole conduct of government in this country? Is he not also aware that the House will be disappointed to learn that the Prime Minister is not to make a statement this afternoon? Will he therefore make it clear that the Prime Minister will speak during the debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will in no sense be disappointed by the content and outcome of Wednesday's debate.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend know whether the Opposition, in choosing this subject for debate, propose to treat it as a matter for the various spokesmen of the sponsoring Departments, in opening and winding up the debate, or whether they propose to throw in some heavier guns?

Mr. Biffen: I shall not respond to the mean remarks that have been made from behind me. The actual participants are for the Opposition themselves to determine, but the Government will be fielding the highest and foremost team.

Westland plc

Mr. Speaker: Statement, the Home Secretary.—[Interruption.] Order. Even I can make mistakes! Statement, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.—[Interruption] Perhaps I should add, in my present capacity.
Throughout last year, Westland plc was facing financial difficulties. The company's position reflected, among other things, a worldwide slump in demand for civil helicopters. Against this background Sir John Cuckney, who became chairman in June 1985, sought a partnership with a substantial industrial group which could offer both finances and commercial strength. United Technologies expressed an interest in taking a substantial minority shareholding.
Subsequently, Fiat joined United Technologies in a joint proposal to take a minority shareholding in Westland. The Government, however, encouraged Westland to explore fully in addition the possibility of an alternative European-based proposal. This led to the development of proposals from a consortium comprising Aerospatiale, Agusta and MBB, which were later joined by British Aerospace.
I announced in my statement to the House of 16 December that the board of Westland had decided to recommend to shareholders the proposals put forward by United Technologies and Fiat. I explained that the Government were not bound by the recommendation of the national armaments directors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy that certain helicopter requirements should in future be met solely from helicopters designed and built in Europe. That remains the position. I also explained the action that the Government had taken to ensure that Westland had an alternative European-based offer to consider, but emphasised that it was for Westland to decide the best route to follow to secure its future and that of its employees. At no stage did the Government collectively determine on a preference for a particular solution.
At its meeting on 19 December the Cabinet confirmed the policy that I had previously announced. It was also decided that no Minister was entitled to lobby in favour of one proposal rather than another. That decision was unanimously approved by the members of the Cabinet.
On 1 January my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out clearly in a letter to Sir John Cuckney that as long as Westland continues to carry on business in the United Kingdom the Government will support the company in pursuing British interests in Europe. My right hon. Friend also made it clear that the Government would resist to the best of their ability attempts by others to discriminate against Westland.
The alternative solutions put to Westland have been presented in some quarters as offering a choice between collaboration with Europe and collaboration with the United States. In fact, the Government welcome collaboration with both Europe and the United States. Both the proposals put to the board have a European

involvement. The Government will continue to support Westland in pursuing British interests in Europe, whichever solution is implemented.
A number of assertions have been made in recent days about my own and the Government's position on this matter. I shall be happy to answer questions on these specific points.
The position now is that the board of Westland has unanimously recommended revised proposals from United Technologies and Fiat to shareholders. Revised proposals from the European consortium, now joined by GEC, have also been circulated to shareholders. The Government hope that the matter can be resolved quickly in the interests of the company and its employees.

Mr. John Smith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is rather curious for a Secretary of State to come to the House after a series of detailed allegations have been made by a former colleague and say nothing whatever about those allegations? Will he understand that the Opposition, at least, do not think that he is the appropriate person to answer questions about the Government's conduct? The Prime Minister should have come to the House today to answer questions posed by a colleague in whom she placed sufficient confidence to give him substantial responsibilities on behalf of her Government.
So far as the Secretary of State, with his responsibilities, is involved, is it not clear that his statement today adds little to what has already been said? May I ask him one detailed question to which I should like his answer? In his statement on 16 December he told the House:
In view of the urgent necessity for a deal to be concluded quickly, the Government decided that from 13 December they would not be bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation unless Westland had by then received a firm offer from the three European companies, which the board would recommend to its shareholders."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 89, c. 35.]
When and how did the Government reach that decision —[Interruption.]—collectively?
The Secretary of State told us that the Government had decided that Ministers would not lobby for either solution. May I ask him about his activities in connection with an interview that he had with Sir Raymond Lygo, the chief executive of British Aerospace, in his office at the Department of Trade and Industry? The Secretary of State will be aware of what has been said in recent days about that interview. Is there a contemporaneous written record of the interview between Sir Raymond and himself, bearing in mind that it would be normal Government practice for such a record to be taken by his private secretary or by officials in his Department? Does that record exist, and, if it does, can it be made available to Members of the House so that they can make a judgment as to what happened and test the accounts that we have been given? Will the Secretary of State understand that what we are interested in in that regard is the contemporaneous written record, which would automatically be made?
If it was the Government's decision that Ministers should keep out of the matter and leave it to the shareholders to decide on both proposals, which were clearly in circulation, why on earth did the right and learned Gentleman decide to speak to Sir Raymond Lygo at all? What was his purpose in calling him into his room


and discussing the matter with him? Why was there an admitted reference in the course of that conversation to anti-United States sentiment and to the consequences of British Aerospace's involvement in Airbus, leading to a cancellation perhaps of American orders for Airbus? Why did the Secretary of State think that it was relevant to raise that matter with Sir Raymond Lygo in the context of a discussion on Westland Helicopters? What was his purpose in raising it if it were not to influence him in one direction or another?
If the Secretary of State says that he was merely discussing the state of orders for British Aerospace, does he not think it remarkable that that very evening Sir Raymond Lygo took the matter of his conversation sufficiently seriously to telephone each of his directors on the board of British Aerospace to acquaint them with the communication that he had received from the Secretary of State that very afternoon ? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not understand that unless he gives a full account of what was said to Sir Raymond Lygo the impression will continue to circulate widely in Britain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying one thing to Parliament, that he was even-handed, and doing another thing in practice and seeking to influence the outcome of the deal?
If Westland is unable, because of its articles of association and its constitution, to decide effectively in favour of either of the proposals, what do the Government propose to do?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, first, when the decision that I announced on 16 December as having been taken by the Government with regard to the national armaments directors' recommendation was made, and in what form. The answer is that the decision was taken collectively at a meeting of Ministers on 9 December.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to ask a number of questions about my meeting with Sir Raymond Lygo. The circumstance of the meeting was that Sir Raymond was, in any event, due to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology to discuss, among other things, the Airbus. Therefore, it seemed to me that it would have been wholly artificial if I did not see Sir Raymond as well, and I shall explain why that was so.
Let me make it clear that it is untrue to say that in the course of the meeting I made any suggestion that British Aerospace should withdraw from the European consortium or that its participation was contrary to the national interest. On the contrary, the Government's position was that it was for Westland to decide which course to follow. However, what I said then, and continue to believe, is that the nature and tone of some of the campaigning, and only some of it, on behalf of the European consortium could fuel protectionism and damage the commercial interests of British Aerospace and its European partners, especially in the United States.
The House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that Sir Raymond said that the United States subsidiary of British Aerospace had expressed concern about its United States' business being halved. I also said that it was not in the national interest that the uncertainty involving Westland should drag on.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to conversations which he said took place after that meeting. I do not know of them, but I can say that others gave a

different impression of what was said or intended at the meeting, and I naturally regret that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know why I was concerned about the implication for Airbus sales and thought it appropriate to raise the matter, he will recall that I have already said that Sir Raymond said that the British Aerospace subsidiary had expressed concern about its business being halved. British Aerospace has a substantial stake in the A320 airbus and, as its sponsoring Minister, I am naturally concerned to protect this interest.
The House also knows that the Government are committed to advancing £250 million launch aid for that project. The recovery of all but £50 million is dependent upon the sale of the aircraft. For all those reasons, I was naturally concerned at the possibility that Airbus sales might be made more difficult, not by the participation of Sir Raymond and British Aerospace in the consortium, but by the tone of some of the things said.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for collaboration of what I have said about the meeting with Sir Raymond. Present at the meeting were a number of civil servants, as well as my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. I have checked the recollection of all those present against mine, and the account that I have given to the House has been confirmed by every official present, as well as by my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. The disclosure of the note is not a matter for me, but I shall consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request.
What happens at tomorrow's meeting may be inconclusive. It would be unwise, faced with the meeting of shareholders tomorrow, for the House or for me to speculate on the many alternative possibilities that could arise. It would be wrong to attempt to do so today.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the Government have received any letters from British Aerospace giving its views of the meeting?

Mr. Brittan: I have not received any such letter.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I wish to return from the wider issues to the matters of the affair which particularly affect my constituency. Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of both the work force at Westland and the smaller shareholders back the decision of the Westland board? Will he confirm that the Anglo-Italian helicopter project, which is vital to Westland's future, is founded on an agreement between the two Governments, not on an agreement between the firms, and that Westland's position as the British Government's chosen instrument cannot be affected? Does the Secretary of State agree that future helicopter projects, which also rest on agreements between Governments, will depend on whom the British Government choose as their representative, and that neither of the two decisions before shareholders tomorrow can threaten Westland's position as the British Government's representative on future European collaborative projects?

Mr. Brittan: The views of the work force are well enough known, and the hon. Gentleman has said what they are. The shareholders must give such weight as they think appropriate to those views.
With regard to the Government's support for Westland, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in


her letter of 1 January, the Government will give their support to Westland in Europe and elsewhere so long as the company carries on business in Britain, irrespective of which consortium takes an interest in the company.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his fair statement of events. Is he aware that for months suppliers to Westland and others have been desperately worried about the problems surrounding the company's finances, and whether they would be paid? That was even before the Ministry of Defence, the Europeans or anybody proposed anything resembling a rescue package. As Westland is not a nationalised industry, and as this is not a takeover bid, would it not be far wiser to have a moment of silence so that Sir John Cuckney, who is an able chairman, and his board can produce the best deal for the company?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that for some considerable time there have been anxieties about the finances of Westland. On his second point, although it is right that I should make the statement to the House, it is also right that we should be careful what we say, because there is a shareholders' meeting tomorrow and it would be wrong to apply any improper influence today.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Was the correcting letter from the Law Officers to the Secretary of State for Defence seen by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his Department before it was sent to the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Brittan: I saw the letter after it was sent.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend see any potential conflict of interest in the fact that the head of the procurement executive, Mr. Peter Levene, was formerly the chairman of United Scientific Holdings? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Mr. Levene was appointed at a salary vastly in excess of that of the chiefs of staff by the former Secretary of State for Defence, who assured the House that there would be no potential conflict? Yet United Scientific Holdings is now being blackmailed by the French Ministry of Defence, which says that an order that it could have in France will be withdrawn if the European consortium's offer is not accepted.

Mr. Brittan: I was not aware of that latter fact. I am sure that Mr. Levene has conducted himself with complete propriety.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: As the sponsoring Minister for the Westland W30 helicopter, will the Secretary of State tell us in what ways he collaborated with the former Secretary of State for Defence in establishing the European consortium?

Mr. Brittan: I said to Westland before the matter came between me and my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence that I thought it should look into the possibility of a European alternative to the United Technologies-Fiat offer which had already come forward. I therefore invited my right hon. Friend to begin that search. At a later stage—last October—at a meeting attended by, among other people, my right hon. Friend the

then Secretary of State for Defence, I indicated my strong view that the search for a European alternative should continue and go ahead.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is substantial concern among the work force, because of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this affair, that neither proposition will come to fruition? In such circumstances, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Government have a firm responsibility to save Westland from receivership?

Mr. Brittan: I very much hope that the matter will be resolved. I must make it clear that I cannot accept responsibility on behalf of the Government. As a result of the actions taken by the Government, including my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence, the company is faced with two alternatives, both of which are better than anything that any fair-minded person could reasonably have expected was likely to come forward several weeks ago.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Westland Aerospace, a totally owned subsidiary, is the largest industrial employer in my constituency and is therefore vital to the well-being of the Isle of Wight? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know also that that company is profitable? Does he further know that most of that profit comes from the work of Boeing and de Haviland—de Haviland now being a subsidiary of Boeing? Does he know also that the work force and middle management voted overwhelmingly the other day in favour of the deal with Sikorsky—by, I think, 1,200 to seven? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that Sikorsky has behaved impeccably throughout this trauma? Does he not believe that that should be taken seriously into account by the shareholders at tomorrow's meeting?

Mr. Brittan: The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's expression of views on the opinions of his constituents. On the question of Sikorsky's behaviour, I am not at the Dispatch Box to make criticisms of either side in this deal.

Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): In view of the important national defence interest involved, and irrespective of the bid that one might favour, how is it possible for the Government not to have a view on which bid is better for this country?

Mr. Brittan: One reason is that the security of supply of helicopters for the armed forces is assured. That is not, therefore, a problem. Another reason, which is of some importance, is that Westland's board has told shareholders that United Technologies has made it clear that it wishes Westland to retain its own helicopter research, design and development capability.

Mr. Michael Foot: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the important answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). From where did the information come that misleading information had been given by the former Secretary of State for Defence, if his Department did not know about it? How did the Law Officers know that there was misleading information if they had not consulted the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman


surprised when the matter was "leaked", if I may use that offensive word, a few hours later? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman a party to the wishes of those hon. Members who seek an investigation into how that possible breach of the Official Secrets Act 1911 occurred?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is well enough experienced in government to know that it is inconceivable that anyone asking such questions when his party was in power would have obtained an answer.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. learned Friend said in his statement that the Government had asked that the European rescue option be fully explored. In replying to a question a few moments ago he said that he had confirmed at the 18 October meeting his strong support for pursuing the European option. Yet a few weeks ago he rebutted press speculation that he had expressed a preference for a European option. Would it not be in the interests of my right hon. and learned Friend and everyone involved in this affair if he were to make the position clear by placing in the Library the minutes that he wrote for 4 and 18 October?

Mr. Brittan: I think that I can make the position perfectly clear without doing that. There is all the difference in the world between wishing for an alternative to be explored and taking the view that the alternative, which at that stage had not been explored, was preferable.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has failed to satisfy the House about what he said to British Aerospace? Is it not clear that at that meeting he expressed a preference implicitly, and perhaps even explicitly, for the American deal? If so, was that not incompatible with Government policy as stated to the House?

Mr. Brittan: The account that I have given of the meeting is accurate. I do not think that to warn people of the consequences of pursuing matters in a particular way, which they had accepted, and of which they had had word from their subsidiary—I am not accusing a particular person, but certain things had been said involving anti-Americanism which were likely to damage their interests—is the same as expressing a preference for the deal.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. and learned Friend not been subjected to unjustified and cruel criticism? Will he confirm that on 19 December the Cabinet unanimously agreed that Ministers would not campaign for either option and that that agreement was consistently and repeatedly breached, not by my right hon. and learned Friend, but by the former Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Brittan: It is true that the Cabinet agreed that no one should campaign for either option. I understand, of course, that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence strongly felt that the European option should be pursued vigorously. I imagine that some of the things that were said in the course of that led my right hon. Friend to the conclusion that he reached.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the central problem the fact that the Prime Minister always intends to have her own way, however deviously she does so, in contravention of collective decision-taking? Is not her greatest strength her unawareness of her limitations?

Mr. Brittan: No, Sir.

Mr. Michael Mates: Did my right hon. and learned Friend report the substance of his conversations last Wednesday evening with Sir Raymond Lygo to his Cabinet colleagues the following morning?

Mr. Brittan: No. There was no reason to do so. [t was agreed at the Cabinet meeting the following morning to affirm the previous policy, which I had already expressed to the House. There was nothing at the meeting with Sir Raymond Lygo that would have led me or anyone else to wish to change that policy.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: In view of the Government's assertions of even-handedness in this matter, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman shed any light on the suggestion that there were discussions between the Prime Minister and President Reagan about the Sikorsky bid and aid for Westland Helicopters? Were there any discussions with the American Administration?

Mr. Brittan: I am not aware of any such discussions.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: In answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), my right hon. and learned Friend said that he had received no such letter. In view of the importance of the conversation that is purported to have taken place, has any other member of the Government received any representations or letter from Sir Raymond Lygo or British Aerospace?

Mr. Brittan: I can only speak for myself.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State address the first question that was asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? On 16 December, why did the Secretary of State refer to the Government's decision to abandon the national armaments directors' recommendation from 13 December? In his answer, he said that the matter was relevant to 9 December. What happened on 13 December which caused him to refer to 13 December if there was no meeting of the Government on that day?

Mr. Brittan: The meeting on 9 December decided that if by 4 pm on 13 December there was no offer from the European consortium which the Westland board felt able to commend to its shareholders, from that moment the national armaments directors' recommendation would not continue to have any effect. The decision was taken on 9 December as to what would happen on 13 December. What had happened was announced on 16 December.

Mr. Michael Grylls: As the Ministry of Defence is Westland's major customer, is it not desirable that if possible there should be a European alternative to the Sikorsky terms so that there can be competitive tenders?

Mr. Brittan: I see the advantage of competition. The implications of that aspect of the matter must be considered.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In answer to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State referred to the crucial British Aerospace letters and emphasised to the House, "I did not." He was then asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) if he knew whether other members of the Cabinet did, to which he replied, "I can only speak for


myself." Would it not be more candid for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry frankly to tell us that if he did not read them, the Prime Minister did?

Mr. Brittan: I have given an account of the meeting, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Why should the House of Commons have more confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend's judgment of the defence implications of this matter than in the judgment of our right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), bearing in mind that throughout his distinguished tenure of office he enjoyed the Prime Minister's wholehearted confidence?

Mr. Brittan: I am not inviting the House to do what my hon. Friend suggests I am inviting it to do.

Mr. Martin Flannery: In view of the profound interest in this matter throughout the nation and Europe, and the almost unprecedented attendance here on a Monday afternoon—[Interruption.]—Tory Members may laugh, but they have something to hide. Why is the Secretary of State treating this serious subject so cavalierly, by not giving proper answers to the questions that he is being asked? Has he something to conceal? Has he read the advertisement in The Times this morning about the mess that British science is in? Does he realise that we are all fearful that our technology is about to disappear to the United States and that our armaments and defence industries are being sold for a mess of potage to a group of shareholders who have no interest in British working people?

Mr. Brittan: That is a view which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to hold. If he is worried about the interests of British working people, he will no doubt also have noted the clear view of the British working people working for Westland in Yeovil.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the motives of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) have wide support in the country and in the House? If the Government are sincere about their commitment to Europe, why did they not prefer European participation from the beginning?

Mr. Brittan: The answer is that it was not forthcoming.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been asked two questions about the meeting with the chairman of British Aerospace. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) asked whether the Government had received a letter from the chairman, and the Secretary of State was subsequently asked the same question again. He dodged answering it on both occasions by meekly saying that he could only speak for himself. Does he not understand that the conviction politician has dodged the column today and that he has been put in her place to answer question? Now that he has been put there, it is his job, not just to answer for himself, but to answer for the Government. That is why he is at the Dispatch Box. He should come clean.

Mr. Brittan: If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I am not aware of any letter from Sir Raymond Lygo to anyone else either.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why the former Secretary of State for Defence places his store firmly behind the British-European option, which I support, when he had the solution for saving Westland in his own hands while he was Secretary of State for Defence? Why did he never place orders for more helicopters with Westland?

Mr. Brittan: The Ministry of Defence took the view, which I wish to make clear I am not in any way criticising, that it was unable to confirm a requirement for support helicopters, for which Westland had been hoping. The Ministry also declined a request from the company to place additional orders for W30 helicopters to help with its short-term problems because there was no military requirement for such helicopters. I wish to make it clear that those are the facts, and that I am not criticising the former Secretary of State for Defence for coming to those conclusions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the contents of the letter from Sir Raymond Lygo are at variance with the statement by the Secretary of State, in order to secure the fullest possible disclosure will the Secretary of State attend, and allow his officials to attend, a hearing of the Select Committee on Defence so that they may be questioned by members of the Committee?

Mr. Brittan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all Select Committees of the House will be treated with the normal respect to which they are entitled.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that three years before he—my right hon. and learned Friend—came to the House I accompanied the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to New York and Washington, at the suggestion and request of the then Minister for Aerospace and the Conservative Government, to defend the concerted attacks on the Concorde project by the American aerospace industry, which was determined to kill it? In my right hon. and learned Friend's opinion, is the American aerospace industry any less determined to neuter or takeover the British aerospace industry? Does he believe that the Government are interested in protecting this country's national aerospace interest? Does he accept that a Rolls-Royce 1971 proposition for Westland is infinitely better than bankruptcy?

Mr. Brittan: Happily, as a result of the action taken by the Government, including my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence, something very much better than that now faces Westland. I was protecting British Aerospace, in its capacity as a member of the Airbus consortium, which is an example of European co-operation, from the threat to the orders which it has successfully secured in the United States, against tremendous opposition from Boeing, being jeopardised.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State comment on press reports that if Westland were to become a subsidiary of United Technologies it would become involved in strategic defence initiative work as a subcontractor, and that that


might be contrary to the memorandum signed by the former Secretary of State for Defence and his United States counterpart?

Mr. Brittan: I cannot comment on those press reports. I do not know of their validity.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that this episode has advanced or retarded the cause of European defence industrial collaboration?

Mr. Brittan: Neither.

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is some years since the matter arose, but it is my recollection that Ministers are entitled to refer to Government documents and those documents need not be published. However, it is my recollection that if a Minister quotes from a document, the document is then published. I believe that I heard the Secretary of State quote to the House what Sir Raymond Lygo said to him about the British Airbus. In those circumstances, I ask you to consider whether the substance of that conversation should be published.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Secretary of State quote from a Government document.

Mr. Brittan: I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I know of his interest in these matters—that I did not quote from the document.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is it the case that, for the shareholders of Westland to have a choice, the recommendation of the national armaments directors had to be rejected by the Government? As a result, the work force and shareholders have a choice. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is intolerable that a private sector company has had to endure so much pressure at a time when it had found a solution to its problems and was within sight of achieving that solution, which could now be in jeopardy?

Mr. Brittan: The board of Westland came up with proposals which it believed would lead to a solution of the problems. It is also the case that as long as the national armaments directors' recommendation remained on the table, the Sikorsky-Fiat proposals could not go ahead.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that there is other important business to follow this statement. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes, by which time we will have had a full half hour for Back-Benchers' questions.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my clear recollection, because I noted it at the time, that the Secretary of State was reading the answer given by Sir Raymond Lygo. I am ready to admit that I may be wrong, but I noted the fact especially because I have had this matter in mind. I ask you to check Hansard carefully to ensure what happened and to give a ruling on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The House heard what the Secretary of State said on that matter.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would check the record, and I shall do so.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: A similar point was raised in the debate on the Second Reading of the Maplin Development Bill, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was purported to quote from a document which he declined to lay on the Table of the House, although he was pressed to do so. Perhaps the Father of the House would consider that precedent and the ruling was made on it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not be distracted by Maplin today.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), is the Secretary of State aware of any letter received by Her Majesty's Government from British Aerospace? Is the Secretary of State aware that when he states from the Dispatch Box that he can only speak for himself he is seriously misleading the House? Any Minister of any rank who speaks from the Dispatch Box speaks for the Government.

Mr. Brittan: I have already answered that point in reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State explain in more detail how the Government took the decision of non-intervention, in view of the defence implications of a Westland takeover? Can he say whether it was considered that Sikorsky might not be satisfied with a partial shareholding and that it might try to take over the entire company in the future?
From the explanation in the statement about the interview with the chairman of British Aerospace, when the Minister said that British Aerospace was aware of the American implications, could it appear that he was bullying the chairman of British Aerospace? Has he considered following the example of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and resigning from the Cabinet in view of the fact that he broke his undertaking of non-intervention to the House on 16 December?

Mr. Brittan: The answer to the latter point is no.
In taking their decision the Government took into account all questions, such as defence procurement and other matters, and took the view that the options available did not justify Government intervention.

Mr. Dave Nellist: What confidence can the workers of Westland have in the job guarantees from either of the teams of big business which have been gazumping each other during recent days, especially from the team led by Lord Weinstock, who, during the past four to six weeks, has axed more than 1,000 jobs in GEC in my constituency?
If defence is the national priority which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister consistently state it is, why do the Government not follow the example of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in 1971 and nationalise Westland and give guarantees to the work force that any surplus capacity will be used to make socially useful goods?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is merging defence considerations with industrial considerations. For defence, the Government must be able to ensure that helicopters are available from a secure NATO source. For industry, the Government's aim must be to further the rescue that would


be in the company's best interests. The two offers would secure those objectives. I believe that the Government have not done all that badly.

Mr. Ken Eastham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the millions of pounds invested by the Government—which is taxpayers' money. Regardless of which company is successful, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state whether there will be any protection of technical design in Britain? Will the Minister discuss the offset problems and the possibilities for companies such as Rolls-Royce which make helicopter engines?

Mr. Brittan: Rolls-Royce has expressed an interest in this matter. However, in view of the commercially sensitive position, I should not discuss that matter before tomorrow. That could appear to favour one side—[Interruption.] I hear one of my hon. Friends say, "In favour of Sikorsky", but that must be a matter for Rolls-Royce.

Mr. John Smith: With regard to the meeting with Sir Raymond Lygo, the Secretary of State said that he had cheched the recollections of colleagues and officials. Did he check a written record? Does a written record exist? It has been drawn to my attention that in a newspaper yesterday an allegation was made that during the discussion the Secretary of State indicated to officials that he did not wish that matter to be recorded. Can the Secretary of State give his reaction to that allegation? When will that record be made available to hon. Members?
As to the so-called concern about the adverse impact on British Aerospace sales, it is clear from the Secretary of State that he does not accuse Sir Raymond Lygo or British Aerospace of creating the problem. To whose statement was he referring?

Mr. Brittan: There is no truth in the hon. Gentleman's point about a matter not being recorded. On the point about what in the campaign led me to take that view, I can safely state, without referring to any statements, that many things were said during the course of the campaign implying that the sole interest of any United States involvement was to reduce Westland's status to low technology. Any suggestion to that effect is contrary to the expressed statement of United Technologies. It is entirely open to people to take one view or another as to which offer is to be preferred, but such allegations are completely untrue —[HON. MEMBERS: "Check the record."] I have already said that I will look into that.

Imported Goods (Safety)

Mr. Conal Gregory: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the death and injury sustained through the sale of dangerous imported consumer goods over the Christmas period.
Christmas should be a time of happiness as we celebrate the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. In too many homes this festive time has been marred by injuries received from imported goods, especially toys, and even by death. The present legislation, which does not require importers to show a duty of care that any goods have been checked on safety grounds, is clearly inadequate.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognise that the matter is so urgent that it should have priority over the business that has already been arranged for the House. The urgency stems from the fact that the goods which cause injury and death have not been prohibited from sale. Exporters from the far east are still shipping dangerous products to the United Kingdom and apparently not testing them against the criteria employed by the British Standards Institution. Britain cannot become the home of cheap, shoddy goods that have deadly consequences.
The debate requested is specific since it seeks to deal with dangerous imported consumer goods. New regulations are overdue, as foreshadowed in the Government's White Paper. Their absence from the statute book can be quantified in the human suffering endured in too many homes during the recess. This is the first opportunity to raise the subject in the House since Christmas. It is also an opportunity for all sides to recognise that prohibition notices and orders, together with voluntary codes of practice, have proved inadequate.
The subject is important. On 20 December, in Yorkshire, a five-month-old baby boy died as a direct consequence of playing with a dangerous imported toy. He was asphyxiated by the nylon hair on a toy pony imported from Taiwan. This was a new and tragic development since my hon. Friend the Minister responded to my Adjournment debate last year. Customs officers must have powers to seize and control dangerous imports, and trading standards officers must be given powers to protect the public. Such goods should not have the ability to maim and kill. Far too many non-United Kingdom goods, especially toys, purchased before Christmas and still being traded have potentially lethal consequences. We owe it to the nation to amend the legislation. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will permit the time to debate this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the death and injury sustained through the sale of dangerous imported consumer goods over the Christmas period.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Statutory Instruments, & c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Extension of Limit on Guarantees) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Local Government Reorganisation (Transitional Provisions) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 1781) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd].

Orders of the Day — Public Order Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I must start with the principle that underlies the Bill. Public order is the fundamental social good. It is a principle of which we were reminded several times during 1985. We shall hear much today and in the debates to come about human rights and freedoms, and rightly so. But let us not forget that the right to go about one's lawful occasions in peace is the underlying human right without which all others are nugatory.
Quiet streets and a peaceful framework for our individual lives can never be taken for granted. For short periods of our history it seemed that public order was established for ever. Other periods, such as the first decade of this century, on which we may look back wistfully, included plenty of public violence. The threat to public order comes in different shapes at different times. That means that the measures needed to safeguard public order and protect the public must be re-examined from time to time. It is half a century since Parliament set itself to that task, and society and its habits have changed radically. It is not unreasonable that the Public Order Act 1936 should be followed by a Public Order Act 1986.
Change must be steadily and carefully considered, and panic and anger are bad guides to this. That is true of all legislation, but especially of Home Office legislation, and even more especially of public order legislation. I make it clear that the Bill was not cobbled together in hasty reaction to last autumn's riots. That is self-evident from its content, and everyone who has followed the proposals knows that their ancestry is older than that and different. When rioting of the sort described in the Metropolitan police report in today's newspapers breaks out, the problem confronting the police is not a shortage of legal powers, but one of enforcement. As I shall try to show, the Bill does not detract from our traditional philosophy of policing, which is based on the principles of policing by co-operation with the public and the minimum use of force. The police are anxious to maintain that tradition, and so am I.
Part I is drawn largely from the English Law Commission's report published in 1983. We agree with' he commission that public order offences should be clearly stated in modern language, and part I revises and codifies the common law offences in England and Wales. No change is made to the common law in Scotland, where the Scottish Law Commission is still considering the law on mobbing and rioting.
In England and Wales, the common law offences are replaced by new statutory offences of riot, violent disorder and affray. Clause 1 defines the new offence of riot, which will be committed when 12 or more people use or threaten violence to achieve a common purpose. Only those using


violence will be guilty of the offence. The White Paper suggested a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for this offence. However, it is the most serious public order offence, and we have provided a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It does now have a maximum penalty of life for an offence drawn rather more loosely than we propose. On balance, we decided to propose the retention of the present maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the new offence, which will be more strictly defined and which will have a higher threshold.
Clause 2 creates the offence of violent disorder to replace the existing offence of unlawful assembly, with a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine. Violent disorder will be used in the future as the normal charge for serious outbreaks of public disorder.
Clause 3 largely restates the existing common law offence of affray, with minor changes. I shall not dwell on that. However, I should dwell on clause 5, because the new offence of disorderly conduct has proved controversial in some quarters and is likely to remain so.
The proposal in clause 5 will penalise behaviour which is not itself violent but which is
threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly, and
—I emphasise the word "and"—is likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) at one time welcomed such an offence in principle. I can understand why. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent inner cities know how many of their constituents suffer from the mischiefs of hooliganism.
The new offence is aimed at protecting those in our communities who are most vulnerable to loutish and abusive behaviour—particularly the elderly and people from the ethnic minorities. Many hon. Members will be only too familiar with the type of behaviour to which I refer. It casts a blight upon an area, whether it be a shopping precinct or a city housing estate, and makes the lives of people living there fearful and miserable. People are frightened to open their own front doors. They are kept awake by rowdy behaviour late at night. Ethnic minority families are victimised with racialist slogans and abuse. Gangs of hooligans make some pedestrian and shopping areas places where ordinary people fear to go. There cannot be many right hon. and hon. Members who do not have examples in their postbags and at their surgeries.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State rightly refers to ethnic minorities being the victims of racial harassment. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity of the Bill to make racial harassment a specific criminal offence?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman examines the events which constitute racial attacks he will find that they are offences anyway. It seems better to encourage the police in London and elsewhere to take the matter seriously, to issue new guidelines and to let the offence be treated as it is, seriously, with a racial connotation, but within the existing definition of offences. That is better than to single out an offence as the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) suggests.
Clause 5 takes account of the many helpful comments that we received when we asked for suggestions on how

the new offence of disorderly conduct should be defined. First, we have abandoned the requirement of proof of actual alarm, harassment or distress. That would have required the victim to give evidence in court. Several bodies represented strongly to us that the more vulnerable victims were most unlikely to be prepared to face their persecutors in case things went wrong and the persecution became worse.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: This is the single most important departure from the White Paper. Who made the representations? How does the Secretary of State answer the argument that he set out so clearly in paragraph 3·26 of the White Paper, which makes it clear that safeguards are required?

Mr. Hurd: We have said throughout that the clause would be difficult to draw. My predecessor set out fairly and clearly in the White Paper the arguments for and against this offence and the considerations in drawing it. Those who commented on the reluctance of victims to go to court to give evidence included the police, the Magistrates' Association, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Society of Prosecuting Solicitors and a number of individuals. When I came to office and considered the Bill, I thought that the case was strongly made out.
We have also dropped the requirement that the alarm, harassment or distress be substantial, in response to criticism that this would present the court with an impossible measurement task. We have introduced a limited power of arrest, which will apply only if a defendant fails to desist from disorderly conduct after a police warning, and we have raised the maximum fine to £400.
Those are the principal changes that we have made since the White Paper foreshadowed this offence. The offence has not been easy to draft. We know what we are aiming at and we do not intend to lose that purpose, but we are certainly open to suggestions on drafting.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Paragraph 3·26 of the White paper is clear. It says:
Any degree of annoyance or disturbance will not suffice.
At what stage did the Home Secretary decide that
Any degree of annoyance or disturbance
would suffice when his predecessor had said that so categorically?

Mr. Hurd: I decided after studying the representations and arguments. The right hon. Member for Gorton is referring to the "substantial" argument—a different point. Setting the courts the task of measuring is unreasonable. However the right hon. Member is entitled to argue his case in Committee.
The response to the White Paper convinced us that we must act to provide the police with more effective powers to protect the public against hooligan behaviour. But we have no desire to use the criminal law to enforce a particular social standard or to worsen relations between young people and the police. This is a law against hooliganism, not against high spirits. It is carefully drafted to avoid the risks of reviving a sus law. Before the right hon. Member for Gorton shakes his head too definitively, I ask him to follow the argument. I hope that we have avoided the risk of reviving a sus law by requiring that the person committing the acts must know or have reasonable cause to believe that his behaviour is likely to cause alarm,


harassment or distress. It is the concept of alarm, harassment or distress which distinguishes what we now propose from the old sus law. Let us look carefully at the drafting, but I hope that before any right hon. or hon. Member opposes the clause he will reflect for a minute on the fear and unhappiness that hooliganism inflicts on so many of our fellow citizens. We believe that we have the job of finding a remedy.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I note that the Home Secretary is anxious to avoid this part of the Bill being abused. He will appreciate that the Bill as drafted enables a constable to arrest without warrant in the event of the conduct being repeated after warning. Would it not be a good idea for the power to arrest to arise only if the constable has given warning that an arrest will follow if the offender does not desist from his conduct?

Mr. Hurd: I should like to consider whether that is practicable. It points in the direction in which I wanted to move when considering whether there should be a power of arrest at all. Some people believe that there should not be such a power and others say that the Bill would be pointless without it. I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. William Cash: I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend about riots. Will he consider proposing that a warning he given in advance of action by the police?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has put that suggestion to me and it has been considered. My hon. Friend might have the opportunity to argue his case but we do not believe that his proposal is likely to be practicable in real life. One of the difficulties is that people might be caught up in a riot but not have committed an offence. If it were an offence to be present after the equivalent of the Riot Act had been read, a person might become caught up. For the moment, we do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion should find a place in the Bill.
Part II of the Bill deals with processions and assemblies. It establishes a new legal framework for the holding of processions, demonstrations and assemblies, building on the framework already provided by the Public Order Act 1936. We want to ensure that the right to protest, to march and to picket peacefully is regulated only to the extent necessary to preserve order and to protect the rights of others. We have therefore concentrated on trying to ensure that the law provides the police with adequate powers to prevent and deal with violence and disorder, while freedom of speech and the right to protest continue to be safeguarded.
Clause 11 deals with advance notice and sets out a new national requirement for the organisers of marches to give seven days' notice to the police. The requirement exists already in Scotland and there are advance notice requirements in local legislation in parts of England and Wales. Lord Scarman and the Select Committee both supported a requirement of advance notice, which would enable discussions between the organisers of marches and the police to take place in good time. The vast majority of march organisers already give notice to the police, and we think it absurd that the police should have to rely on chance and rumour to learn about marches that are organised by a minority of irresponsible groups, which could give rise to violence on the streets and serious disorder.
In March 1985, the Metropolitan police learnt about a proposed National Front march in Greenwich only as a result of leaflets left at a London railway station, yet the march and opposition to it posed a sufficient threat to public order that the police had eventually to seek consent to a ban.

Mr. David Winnick: I take the Home Secretary's point about National Front marches, and I accept, as I am sure my hon. Friends do, that there are certain problems. However, does he recognise that his proposals will cause a great deal of concern to genuine demonstrators? We are living in a democratic country and we must bear in mind always that people have a right to demonstrate on the spur of the moment as strikes develop, for example. Another example is when residents feel strongly that something should be done immediately on their behalf. Therefore, the provisions in the Bill could undermine important and basic democratic rights.

Mr. Hurd: I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 11(4). We believe that we have provided there for exactly the sort of case that he has in mind. There is a specific relaxation of the requirement for marches called at short notice because of some emergency. The hon. Gentleman thought of one example, and another is when a dramatic event abroad suddenly blows up, against which some people want to protest.
Clause 12 widens the existing powers of the police that are contained in section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 to impose conditions on marches. At present, the sole ground for imposing conditions is to prevent serious public disorder. We propose to add three new tests—the need to prevent serious damage to property, serious disruption of the life of the community, and the intimidation of others. The second test—serious disruption of the life of the community—was proposed by the Select Committee. I shall not repeat the way in which it described vividly the sort of disruption that can be caused by marches. We believe that the police should have the power to re-route a march to limit the resulting congestion of traffic, to prevent a bridge being blocked, for example, or to stop a city centre being brought to a standstill.
The third test of intimidation is a libertarian safeguard that will prevent demonstrations being used by those whose real purpose is to intimidate and coerce and not to persuade. The National Front provides examples. The provision that we propose would enable National Front marches in suitable instances to be routed away from racially sensitive areas.
I should stress that the new tests will not enable the police to ban a procession. The power to ban marches does not rest with the police. That power remains unchanged and it is re-enacted in clause 13. Nor are the new powers open-ended. The police will be able to impose conditions only if they reasonably apprehend serious disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation. As now—this is crucial—any decision by the police to impose conditions will be subject to judicial review.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The Home Secretary has spoken about tests and referred to clause 11(4), which provides that the full period of notice will not be required when it is not "reasonably practicable" to give it. Does he not recognise that the application of the tests could be purely arbitrary and that the provisions of clause 11(4) are likely in some instances to be completely ineffective


unless there is some immediate and available way of testing the merits of a decision that has been made? Does he agree that judicial review is not a way of testing the merits of a decision? Does he not accept that the Government should provide that those wishing to hold a procession or assembly should be able to apply to the local county court or to a Crown court judge for a review of the decision made by the police?

Mr. Hurd: I think that judicial review has proved itself effective. It provides a means of dealing speedily with matters of the sort that we are discussing. That is why we inserted "reasonable" in clauses 12 and 14, especially. I shall consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about clause 11(4). However, if someone goes ahead and does not give clear notice, he might expect to have to argue the matter before the courts and persuade them that he was covered by clause 11(4). It would not be too late because he would not have given notice.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly two years ago in Leicester there was a possibility of three different marches taking place in the city on the same day, directed mainly to getting the troops out of Northern Ireland? The council made it clear that it would not apply for the Home Secretary to grant a banning order, even though the Chief Constable appeared to want one. What is my right hon. Friend's advice to chief constables when local authorities refuse to grant such applications on political grounds?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is tempting me on to ground that I do not intend to cover with the Bill. As I have said, I do not think that we should change the arrangements by which it is the responsibility of councils, outside London, to take a decision on a ban. I am aware of the difficulties that arise occasionally but it should remain a matter of local persuasion.
I shall try to deal with the provisions of clause 14 in full before giving way to further interventions. The clause breaks new ground by conferring upon the police certain preventive powers in relation to open-air assemblies. These powers fall short of those in relation to marches which I have been describing. There will be no requirement of advance notice and there will be no power to ban. The clause introduces a new power to impose conditions. Assemblies and static demonstrations may just as often be the occasion of public disorder as marches and the Government believe that it is unacceptable for gatherings, such as those at Greenham common, or the mass pickets of the miners' strike, to be outside the framework of controls. The clause therefore confers on the police powers to impose conditions on open-air assemblies to prevent, on the same three tests I have mentioned, serious disorder, serious disruption or intimidation.
We stopped short of a power to ban because we believed that that would be an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech. For this reason, clause 14 does not permit the police to impose conditions changing the date and time of an assembly. They will be able only to impose conditions limiting its size, location or duration. As with clause 12, any decision by the police to impose conditions will be subject to judicial review. Where a rally threatens serious public disorder, the police will in future be able to relocate it. Where, as in the Stop

the City campaign, the demonstrators set out deliberately to be obstructive, the police would have the power to take preventive action. Where pickets obstruct deliberately, or try to, the passage of those going to work, as they did at Grunwick's and Warrington and during the miners' strike, the police would be able to limit their numbers or move them further away from the workers' path.
There is an important point, which has not been grasped fully. As we know from experience during the miners' strike, the police have already substantial powers under the common law to remove people who are threatening a breach of the peace. These existing powers enable the police to take action when trouble is imminent or when it has begun. It seems sensible to us that they should have a preventive power that will enable them to negotiate reasonable ground rules that would prevent trouble happening at all. If the police were to try to impose unjustified conditions, that could be challenged by way of judicial review. As the House will see, the right of peaceful picketing will not be infringed.

Mr. Kaufman: It will.

Mr. Hurd: It will, but it depends on what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is the purpose of picketing. Pickets whose purpose is peacefully to dissuade or communicate information will not be touched by the new measure because this picketing will not be disorderly, disruptive or coercive. But where the purpose of picketing is physically to obstruct or to intimidate rather than to persuade, it is right that the police should have preventive powers.

Mr. David Ashby: This clause has a lot to do with the miners' picketing of last year. Is there anything in this Bill that assists with the evidential aspect of the offences that were committed at that time? The problem that arose out of the miners' picketing was the great difficulty in bringing people, who had clearly committed offences, successfully to trial due to evidential difficulties. Is there anything in this Bill that will assist?

Mr. Hurd: I hope when my hon. Friend studies in depth the new definitions of riot and violent disorder he will find that they have been tightened. Areas of uncertainty have been cleared up. We have made it more difficult to obtain a conviction for riot because we have tightened up the definition of that offence. I hope that when my hon. Friend looks at part I as a whole, he will see a tidier framework, which should remove some of the present uncertainties.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The Secretary of State spoke earlier of the right of protest and demonstration. Does he not accept that clause 14 means that the right of assembly is now to be defined in its formal context by the police? This is a major change to existing legislation.

Mr. Hurd: Where the police have reasonable grounds—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows more about the law than I do and he will know the importance of the word "reasonable"—the court can make a test. When the police have reasonable grounds for supposing that there would be serious disorder, serious disruption or intimidation, they can impose conditions which are subject to judicial review. That is the nub of the change that we are proposing.
Part II applies in Scotland, except for clause 11 and clause 13. Scotland has a separate regulatory structure for the control of marches and certain minor changes to the structure are made by the amendments to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in schedule 2.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has dealt most tolerantly with so many interventions. Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to the anxiety of many people about gatherings and so-called festivals at archaeological sites and ancient monuments? At an appropriate stage, will my right hon. Friend consider amendments to part II to assist the police to deal with these matters?

Mr. Hurd: Such amendments will be considered, as I know that many hon. Members feel strongly about this. My hon. Friend the Minister will deal with this in the winding-up speech.
I will not dwell on part III, which deals with racial hatred and provides additional protection against incitement to racial hatred. I hope that the provisions will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the Secretary of State comment on part III?

Mr. Hurd: I am prepared to say a great deal, but in the interests of brevity I will leave it to my hon. Friend to find other ways of making his point.
Part IV consists mainly of measures against football hooliganism. Last summer, with the help of all parties, we passed an Act to control the sale and possession of alcohol at football matches. We now propose to introduce an exclusion order scheme, which will enable the courts to ban convicted hooligans from attending football matches. The purpose of this scheme is to exclude the troublemakers and especially the ringleaders who instigate much of the violence. Anyone found guilty of a football-related offence may be subject to an exclusion order and any breach of that order would be a further offence for which he could be sent to prison. It has been said, since we published the Bill, that exclusion orders will be hard to enforce without membership cards. Certainly I hope that the scheme will stimulate the clubs to make greater speed on membership cards. It is a powerful scheme, even without membership cards. An offender who has an exclusion order added to his sentence will have his photograph taken. He will know that photographs are circulated and he will also know that, more likely than not, there will be closed-circuit television on any ground he is tempted to visit. This knowledge will be a powerful deterrent against his defying the order.
The exclusion order scheme will not apply in Scotland but the further measures against football hooliganism in schedule 1 will apply there as in England and Wales. There will be a new offence of possessing a smoke bomb at a football match, as recommended by Mr. Justice Popplewell in his interim report. In the light of experience and protest, mini-buses are brought within the scope of the alcohol ban which applies at present to coaches and trains.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I shall be brief. Most of the football industry will welcome this clause. Can the Secretary of State clear up two points? Will those people who are excluded because of violence during a game or on the approach to a game be subject to the law in other

forms? The Bill talks about certain football matches—I think the words are "the football ground concerned". What about other grounds? Will offenders be excluded from grounds other than those where the offence took place?

Mr. Hurd: It is not a substitute for other penalties or other sentences. It would be for the court to decide the scope, both in terms of the geography and duration of an exclusion order.

Sir John Farr: Photography has attracted a great deal of interest. Can my right hon. Friend comment on the possibility of adding fingerprinting to clause 30 as well as photography? Will my right hon. Friend seek to take some action relating to the hooligans' passport when an exclusion order has been served? These are the people who behave badly in Britain and then go abroad and besmirch our name at soccer matches on the continent.

Mr. Hurd: I am prepared to think about the second point. Photography is crucial. It would not be possible to take people's fingerprints at football grounds. Photographs can be circulated and there is an increasing use of closed-circuit television. I will consider what my hon. Friend said, though I consider that the circulation of photographs will probably be the effective technique.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand that parts of this Bill include some of the recommendations of Popplewell part one. I understand that Popplewell part two—the final report—is expected shortly. Will its recommendations be absorbed in this Bill at a later stage or will there be separate piece of legislation?

Mr. Hurd: I hope to make a statement about Mr. Justice Popplewell's final report possibly later this week. Much of his report deals with matters that do not fall within the scope of this Bill.
It is 50 years since the Public Order Act 1936 was passed. It has stood the test of time pretty well, but the events of recent years have confirmed the need to update the framework of public order law to ensure that it is strong enough to protect the public in 1986 and hereafter. We have tested each proposal in the Bill against that standard. In Standing Committee, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, the House will repeat those tests—quite rightly, that is what Standing Committee is for. Some will speak, quite naturally, as they have begun to do from the Opposition Benches, this afternoon, for those who define liberty in terms of the right to march, picket and demonstrate, to go unhindered to a football match, to do what they like on housing estates and in shopping precincts without police interference.

Mr. Kaufman: Nonsense.

Mr. Hurd: Well, we shall judge what happens in debate. We have to balance those rights, which are understandably of concern, against the rights of the public to be protected from disorder, destruction, intimidation and hooliganism. We shall listen carefully to suggestions that might improve the balance that we have tried to strike. I hope that, like its predecessors, the present team of Home Office Ministers has a reputation for constructive listening.
Before the discussion of detail gets under way, can I leave the House with just one thought? The Government do not believe that there is any intrinsic merit in piling up


fresh powers for the police. The police need their powers, not for their own satisfaction or aggrandisement, but to protect the public more effectively. This is a Bill for the better protection of the public. I am certain that the public stand four square behind that argument. In no respect is it more important than in public order. I commend the Bill to the House.

5·9 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, at a time when serious crime has increased by 40 per cent. under this Government and the crime clear-up rate has markedly declined, contains no proposals which are likely to be effective in preventing disorder, while diverting scarce police resources from fighting crime and at the same time seriously undermining traditional civil liberties.
This debate takes place against a background of a crime wave which continues to be the most alarming that the country has experienced in modern times, and the collapse of the Government's policy on law and order. The newly published volume of "Social Trends" documents that 3·5 million serious crimes are now committed in Britain each year—nearly 1 million a year more than when the Government came to office. In urban areas, the crime increase in places such as greater Manchester and south Yorkshire is more than twice the national average. "Social Trends" confirms that, over the nation as a whole, little more than one third of those crimes are being cleared up—a reduction from 42 per cent. when the Government came to office.
Fear of crime has now become a plague, casting a grim shadow across Britain. No fewer than 12 per cent. of all inner-city residents say that they never go out alone at night because of crime. More than 60 per cent. of women living in inner cities feel at least somewhat unsafe and 60 per cent. of those aged over 60 say that they feel very unsafe.
Against that background of soaring crime and a serious decline in proportionate police success in combating it, the pressure on overstretched police forces grows ever greater and more oppressive. Chief constables and police authorities in many parts of the country document those severe problems that seriously hamper their strenuous efforts to combat crime.
Three months ago, the greater Manchester police authority sent a plea to the Home Secretary, documenting the cuts that it might have to make, including a stop on recruitment entailing a fall in police numbers and closure of some police stations. It said that increased insurance costs alone, consequent upon the abolition of the greater Manchester council, will cost the force £700,000.
Although the Home Secretary has partially increased the greater Manchester police authority's determination, he has still not met its full needs, yet he claims that his response to such requests will be based on need.
The district auditor recently completed an inquiry into the west midlands police authority. His conclusions included the verdict that that force suffers from insufficient resources for operational policing. He reports:
Several senior officers told my staff that their sole objective is to get through the day without a major catastrophe.
The district auditor declared:

The manpower available for operational policing is often frighteningly low.
The chief constable of the west midlands, Mr. Geoffrey Dear, says in his report on the Handsworth riots:
currently we are training all personnel in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Such commitments inevitably reduce the uniformed control capacity.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Kenneth Newman, forecast a few weeks ago another huge increase in crime in London. He warned that, without extra manpower, some burglaries would not even be investigated—that when, in London, the clear-up rate for burglary is only 10 per cent. Today's press reports the estimates submitted by Sir Kenneth to the Home Office and comments that they do not provide even half of the manpower increase that Sir Kenneth says that he needs.
The Government are so ashamed of their response to the financial requests of the police that they have done their best to confuse and mislead Parliament by throwing up a smokescreen around the true figures. Last month, in the House, the Home Secretary, obediently followed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, tried to imply that the Government are planning an increase in finance for the police in real terms for the next financial year. The operation was renewed with a planted story in The Times only last week. However, on the most favourable estimates, the Government are planning a reduction in expenditure on the police in real terms this year.
A study of the fine print of ministerial answers shows that the Government's claims of an increase are based on a comparison of this year's budget with that of next year. The problem for the Government is that the pressure on the police this year has caused them to spend £101 million more than their budget. The Home Secretary tried to imply last month that the increase is due to expenditure on police overtime during the miners' strike. When I asked him, the Minister of State admitted to me that the Government had no idea of the cost of police overtime during the miners' strike and that their estimate of all special payments in connection with that dispute is about £9 million—only a small fraction of the £101 million overspent.
If the previous Home Secretary had tried to deceive the House with such manipulation of statistics, I would have accused him of deliberate sharp practice. The present Home Secretary being what he is, all I say is that he has got himself into a muddle. It is unquestionable, however, that the only realistic way in which to compare expenditure levels is to set one year's expenditure, when it is known or can be estimated, against the next year's plans. Such a comparison shows clearly whether there is to be an increase or a decrease. To base comparisons on spending plans that have been exceeded is financial chicanery.
If Mr. Roberts, the Grantham grocer, had based his accounting not on what he spent but on the smaller sum to which he would have liked to limit himself, Mr. Roberts would never have been awarded an alderman's robe, let alone be able to lay it down with honour, as he would have been an undischarged bankrupt at the time.
On the Government's present inflation estimates, they are budgeting for an expenditure reduction of 0·75 per cent. on the police next year. On today's inflation rate, the reduction is 1·8 per cent. Far from doing their best to ease the burdens of the police, in this Session the Government are legislating to increase them. The Shops Bill is before the House of Lords at the moment. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, the excellent and enterprising prospective


Labour candidate for Peterborough, recently wrote to the Association of Chief Police Officers asking about the expected effect on the police of the Sunday opening of shops. I have here the reply that he received from the honorary secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr Brian Hayes, the chief constable of Surrey. About the deregulation of Sunday shopping, Mr Hayes says:
Traffic … police presence on Sundays might need to be increased and the current practice of minimum manning would need to be re-assessed. Parking regulations would require major revision to incorporate Sundays, as many existing regulations do not apply after 6·30 pm on Saturdays. The increased restrictions would then need to be enforced.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. May I conclude this quotation from a very respected chief constable? About the potential increase in crime as a result of the deregulation of Sunday shopping, Mr. Hayes says:
Longer opening hours would provide increased opportunities for persons, particularly juveniles, to commit offences of theft, and there could be an increased risk to shop staff, especially females, who are required to take cash to the bank or to travel home during the hours of darkness. There is also a possibility of an increase in offences of public disorder, criminal damage and violence if late night shoppers come into contact with early evening drinkers.
In summing up, the chief constable of Surrey said:
It would be difficult to be more precise on the matter of cost, but if Saturdays are any yardstick, we should not underestimate the possible difficulties.

Mr. Lyell: Before the right hon. Gentleman drags away this smelly red herring, will he tell the House what he estimates it would cost local authorities if they set out to enforce the present law on Sunday trading?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) must follow the creditable example of the future Labour Member for Peterborough and write to the secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers. What the hon. and learned Gentleman describes as a smelly red herring is, in fact, a letter from the secretary of that respected body. I would bet that if I had quoted from him something derogatory about the miners, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have cheered.

Mr. Hurd: Does the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) not expect to be called when the House debates the Shops Bill?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not know. After what has happened in the Cabinet, there may be other changes in the House. Who can tell?
If the chief constable of Surrey is correct, the Shops Bill may even increase the number of disturbances with which the Public Order Bill claims to deal.
Public order offences are only a tiny fraction of the crimes committed in Britain each year. Despite the costs caused by their ugly destructiveness, the financial costs to the economy of disorder and rioting—as distinct from the grave, human and social costs,—are small compared to the cost to the nation of financial fraud which is estimated to exceed £3 billion a year. Yet despite the Financial Services Bill, which the House is to debate tomorrow, the Government are taking little more than token action in dealing with fraud, compared with this extremely heavy-handed Bill.
On 20 December the Financial Secretary to the Treasury admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that criminal prosecutions are undertaken in only a small number of fraud cases. On Saturday The Times gave the excuse:
The cost of trials, an average of £500,000 in such complex City cases, makes the Department of Public Prosecutions or the tax authorities reluctant to press cases unless they can safely predict conviction on serious charges.
Such considerations of cost and difficulty did not deter the public order trials connected with the miners' strike. One Orgreave trial cost £500,000 and a trial in Nottinghamshire cost £1·5 million. In total, the estimated cost of trials arising from the miners' strike is said to be millions of pounds and all, without exception, ended in ignominious defeat for the prosecution.
The Government's approach to such offences 7eveals a great deal about their real definition of law and order which they apply very differently in a socially and discriminatory way to working people on the one hand arid to City swindlers on the other.
There is great public concern about disorder and riots because such crimes are the most visible of all. They are catapulted into our living rooms by the vividness of television. The nation would welcome firm and effective action to prevent such disorders, provided that such action is compatible with civil liberties. The Opposition would support such action.
Although the Bill is stuffed with new offences and penalties, there is no evidence that it would have the tiniest effect in preventing disorder. I have read press accounts today of the Metropolitan police report on the Broadwater Farm disorders. Having studied the accounts I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that inquiry. Yet it cannot be denied that if this Bill had been an Act at the time of the Broadwater Farm riot, not one event described in the Metropolitan police report would have been prevented and the riot would have proceeded as scheduled. Even people like Mrs. Donna Kiffin, who warned the police several days in advance that such a disturbance was in the offing, could not have influenced the outcome.
It is unlikely that, if the Bill had been in force, there would have been more arrests for public order offences at Broadwater Farm. Another official inquiry prepared by Chief Constable Dear into the Handsworth disorders revealed that only a small proportion of the offences with which people were charged after the disturbance were public order offences—48 out of 355. All the Bill will do, at best, is to create new offences for which people involved in riots can be arrested. However, the evidence shows that sufficient offences are already available to the police and that the courts can already impose heavy sentences, as happened with the recent life sentence on a football hooligan.
At best, the Bill is innocuous and in some ways even comic. At worst, it will impose unnecessary new burdens on our sorely pressed police forces, will invade civil liberties and create new tensions between the police and the public at a time when it is essential that relationships between the police and the public should be strengthened and improved.
Before the Christmas recess, the Opposition assisted and expedited legislation giving powers to ban alcohol from football grounds. In so far as that legislation has been successful, the Opposition are glad that they did so. But the Opposition are still waiting to hear about the


Government's success in their other objectives. In April the Government called upon the football authorities to report within six weeks on a practical scheme of membership cards. Nine months later no progress has been made and a group of northern football clubs which I met a few weeks ago assures me that such a scheme continues to be impractical, whatever the Home Secretary has said this afternoon.
The Government asked the football authorities in April to accelerate the introduction of closed-circuit television. The Home Secretary seems to have little idea of what is happening, as he said on BBC radio on 6 December:
closed-circuit television is now becoming quite usual in football grounds.
Yet the Minister responsible for sport told me six days after the Home Secretary's categorical statement that only 27 grounds in the football league and the Scottish football league have closed-circuit television systems. That is a mere 21 per cent. of the total, yet the Home Secretary has said that closed-circuit television is an adjunct of the other proposals in the Bill. On that basis, the Bill can have no helpful effect on 80 per cent. of football grounds.
In place of the Government priorities which now seem to have been abandoned, the Bill contains two new proposals. One is the creation of exclusion orders by which football hooligans will be banned from matches. In principle, the Opposition see no objection to that. We are baffled, however, about how that will work. The police organisations with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and I have discussed the matter are just as baffled. No one has the slightest idea of how the orders are to be enforced or what will happen if an excluded person turns up at a ground from which he has been banned. The Home Secretary seems to say that such a person would be photographed. The clause dealing with photography is one of the most obscure clauses that I have ever seen.
Clause 30 empowers a court to make an order that a person subject to an exclusion order should be photographed. However, the Bill does not state what will be done with the photographs. When the Bill was published, I had meetings with the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers. At each of those meetings with some of the most distinguished police officers in the country, we sat round the table, with cold towels figuratively round our heads, trying to puzzle out the implications of the photography clause. We agreed that a direct consequence would be an encouraging increase in the sales of the magazine Amateur Photographer. We were equally agreed that that could not be the Government's entire objective. We mused upon the possibility that the photographs could be pasted into albums and that police officers could while away long winter nights turning the pages and admiring these mugshots.
We were sure that it would be impracticable for such photographs to festoon the turnstiles of football grounds, with stewards comparing, one by one, the faces of customers in the queue with these pin-up pictures. It would be impossible to imagine any situation more likely to provoke a riot rather than keep out a rioter. So we must take it that clause 30 is the Home Secretary's little joke.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman is giving a graphic description of what could happen and those of

us involved in the football industry have some sympathy with what he says. However, will he accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which was that there would be a deterrent effect on those photographed after committing a violent offence inside or outside a ground? In the same way, there is a deterrent effect in the curfew orders in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. That is partly what this Bill is about. If it deters offenders from going to grounds, it will have gone some way to remedy this awful problem.

Mr. Kaufman: If I thought that the act of photography would turn a hooligan into a law-abiding citizen, I would advocate the mass sale of cameras. In "A Clockwork Orange" the gentleman was tamed by listening to Beethoven. Perhaps we should try that solution if the photography does not work.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The people who would recognise those who had been excluded from football grounds, but subsequently got into the grounds, are their colleagues at those grounds. They would quickly realise that the provision was almost unenforceable and it would come into contempt.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept what my hon. Friend says, which implies that they would gain entry to football grounds; exclusion orders are designed to prevent that.
Let us look at other parts of the Bill that are far from a joke and, indeed, have the most serious implications, for example, clause 10. I hope that the Home Secretary will follow this, because the implications of what I have to say are serious.
Following the Handsworth riots in October, I asked the Home Secretary what action could be taken to speed up the payment of compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and to expand the scope of that Act to take account of loss of income after riots. The Home Secretary gave me assurances that those issues were being considered. Indeed, he said that he shared my desire that the 1886 Act should be implemented in such a way as to bring as effective and prompt relief as possible.
However, far from assisting with such matters of great importance to innocent citizens who have suffered great material damage, the Bill ensures that in future very few people, if any, will be compensated under the 1886 Act. That is because the new offence of violent disorder will largely replace the old offence of riot. That is the view of ACPO and of the Home Office, which stated in its press release on the publication of the Bill:
Riot … will be the least commonly used public order offence, reserved only for very serious cases
and the Home Secretary confirmed that view today. Yet far from reassuring us that this grave charge will be sparingly used, the Home Secretary's assertion is worrying, because clause 10 confines eligibility for compensation under the 1886 Act and the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 to those affected by clause 1—the riot clause—which creates the new offence of riot which is rarely to be used.
It is unacceptable that those suffering material loss to their livelihood as a result of disorders should be deprived of compensation by the Government's juggling and manipulating the law in this way. We shall insist that the Bill be amended to remove that unjust treatment.
Both the new offence of riot and the other new offences of violent disorder and affray are defined far too widely, in a manner which goes against previous Government assurances and against the authoritative views of others.
In proposing the new offence of riot, the Law Commission stated that the offence should deal with persons using or threatening violence
such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
Paragraph 3·17 of the White Paper said that the Government agreed with the Law Commission's proposed statutory definition. In proposing the new offence of violent disorder, the Law Commission defined it in relation again to a
person of reasonable firmness present at the scene".
Again, the White Paper stated:
The Government is content to accept the Law Commission's proposed statutory definition.
The same proposal and the same criterion apply to the new offence of affray. Yet for each of these new offences, the Bill, in clauses 1, 2 and 3, negates the Law Commission's proviso by the subsection which states:
No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
That dilution of necessary safeguards in the creation of the new offences, each of which carries substantial penalties, is all the more disturbing in view of the judgment of the House of Lords in the Kamare case, in which the present Lord Chancellor participated. The judgment stated:
The essential requisite was the presence or likely presence of innocent third parties not participating in the illegal activities in question; it was the danger to their security which constituted the threat to public peace and the public element necessary for the commission of the offence.
Nowhere are the protections more glaringly absent than in the Bill's version of the new offence of disorderly conduct. When the White Paper was published in May, I welcomed its proposal for the new offence. As an inner city Member of Parliament I am daily made aware of the misery caused to defenceless people—often pensioners, often women—by loutish conduct that goes far beyond boisterous high spirits. The Home Secretary has taken to quoting my welcome of what the White Paper said as some sort of endorsement. I only wish that he would require my endorsement of everything he does and that when I give my endorsement he would do what I endorse.
I should still welcome the creation, with appropriate safeguards, of such a new offence as was described in the White Paper. However, I have to say that clause 5 creates a new offence which has not the slightest chance of accomplishing what I advocate and what the White Paper proposed. Instead, it is fraught with the most serious dangers by its breadth of scope and lack of clarity.
Moreover, clause 5 seriously departs from specific commitments contained in the White Paper, which said of the proposed offence of disorderly conduct:
The Government recognises that there would be justifiable objections to a wide extension of the criminal law which might catch conduct not deserving of criminal sanctions.
The White Paper went on:
For this reason, the offence contains the safeguard that the behaviour must actually cause someone to feel alarmed, harassed or distressed (not that it is merely likely to do so).
Yet the Bill scraps what the White Paper says is a necessary safeguard and specifically lays down that an offence is committed if behaviour or the use of words is
likely to harass, alarm or distress another person.
That was repudiated by the White Paper.
Again, the White Paper insisted, in italics, that the victim—as the White Paper called her or him—should have suffered substantial alarm, harassment or distress. The Bill does not contain the word "substantial". Yet again, the White Paper proposed what it called
a sufficient maximum penalty of £100.
The Bill provides for a £400 penalty.
The Home Secretary seems to misunderstand what he is proposing. On the day of the publication of the Bill, he claimed on "The World At One" that the new offence of disorderly conduct would
cover the kind of hooliganism where a group rushes up and down outside a block of flats terrorising people who live inside without actually causing a breach of the peace.
That is precisely what the Bill will not do.
First, the new offence does not require a victim, as was required in the White Paper. Secondly, the provision that the person charged is committing an offence only if he ignores a warning by the police is a complete fantasy. Can anyone imagine a gang harassing an old person on a housing estate, on hearing that the police had been called, deciding to wait until they arrived, wait to be warned and then persist in their behaviour? They would have run off long ago.
The Government, quite rightly, have included in the Bill a requirement for a police warning before arrest—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before charge.

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, before charge.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, even before he makes it. I apologise for my error.
The police are well aware that the offence is so widely drawn that it could be used at whim. That is a power that the police do not want, as the chief constable of Essex, on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, told me in a letter stating:
We are anxious to see a balanced approach which gives police adequate powers to maintain public order but does not lose the British police its reputation for restraint and impartiality.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Clause 5 is somewhat controversial. I have experienced a large number of complaints about loutish behaviour in shopping precincts in Ipswich. I have attended meetings with residents, shopkeepers and the police, who want to do something about the problem. However, they cannot do anything about such behaviour because it must relate to specific incidents, which they do not observe happening.
I would appreciate a strong lead from my right hon. Friend. Is he rejecting the clause in principle, or does he believe that the principle is worthy but the clause needs substantial amendment in Committee?

Mr. Kaufman: I am saying what I said when the White Paper was published last May. From my experience in my constituency, which is similar to my hon. Friend's experience, I know of the profound concern felt by those subjected to loutish behaviour that frightens them, but with which the police cannot deal under the present law. That is why I immediately welcomed the proposal in the White Paper. This clause will not deal with that sort of behaviour—

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why not?

Mr. Kaufman: I was about to explain why not. Clause 5(5) requires a person to be warned by a constable arid then


to persist in his behaviour before an arrest without warrant can take place. Let us take the example of old ladies who are regularly harassed. It is inconceivable that the louts would hang around for the arrival of the police, wait for a warning from a police officer and then meekly accept arrest. That is why I describe the clause as a fantasy. The behaviour to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and I object, and which we want dealt with in the Bill, will not be caught by the clause.
If the Government could draft a clause that effectively dealt with the sort of complaints that so many hon. Members have experienced, I would, as I said nine months ago, look upon it with great favour. The problem is that the Government, after nine months, have found it impossible to draft such a clause. The clause that they have drafted fails to deal with the sort of behaviour that concerns my hon. Friend and myself, while creating an offence that has grave implications—not for those with whom we are trying to deal, but for other people. That is why I cannot accept the clause. If the Government put forward amendments in Committee to deal with such behaviour, clearly I should be prepared to consider them.
The offence in the clause will provide no protection for the vulnerable about whom I am primarily concerned, but will create circumstances in which the police will have the power to pick up anyone they choose of whose behaviour they disapprove. The Times, on 7 December, warned that the offence was
extremely broad in its potential application
and that
police application of it will require tough monitoring if the old 'sus' problems are not to recur.
The Daily Telegraph leading article on 9 December described the disorderly conduct offence as "questionable", and went on to say:
Parliament will have to ensure tight drafting to deter police excesses reminiscent of 'sus' and to prevent those who merely give vent to boisterous high spirits from obtaining criminal convictions.
I endorse those words. Unless appropriate amendments are tabled, the Opposition will oppose the clause.
Even more dangerous are the proposed limitations on the right to peaceful assembly, whether marches or open-air gatherings. Again, the Daily Telegraph rightly warned:
The controversial new powers to impose conditions on the size, location and duration of demonstrations will clearly require sensitive policing if they are not to undermine freedom of assembly.
We object to the length of notice that will be required for marches and processions. The Bill provides for six clear days, while the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended three days and the Association of County Councils said that 36 hours would be adequate. Ministers may point to Scottish legislation, which lays down a seven-day period, but there is a major difference between the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and this Bill. The Scottish Act provides that notice should be given to a local authority—the Regional Islands council. This Bill requires that notice is given to the police.
It is one thing for a decision about a march to be in the hands of a democratically-elected body, but another to force on to the police responsibility for imposing conditions that rest on political judgments. That is unfair to the police. Moreover, it is a role that the police simply do not want, as the chief constable of Essex has made clear.
Representatives of the Police Federation with whom I have discussed that point said:
We do not want to have put into the hands of the police decisions which can be interpreted as political decisions.
I fully concur with the statement of Mr. Leslie Curtis, the chairman of the Police Federation, who said:
The police of Britain must not be seen either as Maggie Thatcher's boot boys or as a people's militia.
The trouble is that the Bill goes a long way towards turning the reluctant and unwilling police into Maggie's boot boys.
The conditions in the Bill allow the police to impose on marches what can, in effect, amount to a ban by the police rather than by an elected authority. Of course, the police will use their discretion. They may, without conditions, allow a march by parents protesting against a road accident blackspot—but not one protesting against the arrival of cruise missiles. Indeed, the Home Secretary mentioned Greenham common in his speech. By doing that, inevitably they will be expressing a judgment on the merits of one against the other.
Moreover, if parents wish to demonstrate speedily and effectively, following an accident to one of their children, they will be able to do so only if the police agree to accept shorter notice. That limitation, based on value judgments that are inevitably subjective, is an unacceptable invasion of civil liberties.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.
What applies to marches applies even more to peaceful open air assemblies, since the restrictions imposed in the Bill are unprecedented and, once again, can result in a de facto ban, although no banning power is contained in the Bill. The Government may claim that the new power of imposing conditions on open air meetings and gatherings can deal with disorder, for example, by providing powers to stop violence on a picket line, but, as the Home Secretary said, there are already ample powers to deal with violence and obstruction, whether on a picket line or elsewhere.
The Bill will give the police the power to limit peaceful picketing by small numbers of people. That the police may not necessarily use the power does not detract from its existence and, moreover, as there is no notice provision—we would completely oppose it—the power to impose conditions on assemblies is even more random and capricious than the limitations on marches. I cannot do better than quote a letter sent to the Home Secretary by the secretary of the Police Federation which, speaking of that power over assemblies, scornfully declares:
It is ill conceived, totally impractical and entirely inappropriate to deal with the type of spontaneous disorder resulting from static demonstrations, pickets or football matches … we can see absolutely no merit in legislation that seeks to close a stable door after the horse has bolted and we suggest that this part of the White Paper has little or no merit from the point of view of practical application.
That is said by the Police Federation.
That dangerous innovation has less merit from the point of view of our traditional civil liberties. It is significant that in stating the circumstances in which conditions can be applied to marches, the Bill adds to the present limited criterion of "serious public disorder" the alterntive criterion of
serious disruption to the life of the community".


It is significant that the "serious disruption" criterion can be applied also to open air meetings and gatherings. What is more, the Home Secretary has given an example of what that can mean. He referred to a demonstration outside Selfridges about South African oranges, and suggested that under the new powers the demonstration could be moved away from Selfridges. However, the whole point of such a demonstration is that it should take place at the point of grievance. By moving it away, the police would be making a political judgment. Moreover, they would be making an even greater and more fundamental judgment that the right to demonstrate is less important than the right to shop. It is a provision based on the view that demonstrations on matters of principle are not part of the life of the community. In a democracy, the right peacefully to state a point of view is at least as precious as the right to buy oranges, but the Bill tips the law against that right to state a point of view. The only defence for the Government is that at least they are consistent. The Prime Minister is ready to give to those attending open air meetings the same right of free expression as she gives to those attending Cabinet meetings.

Mr. Hurd: May I press the right hon. Gentleman—on the oranges rather than on the Cabinet? As he accurately said, the test is one of serious disruption. Is he saying that in his view there is no balance to be struck, and it would be reasonable for the demonstration that he said I gave as an example to disrupt Oxford street to such an extent that it was closed to shoppers in the weeks before Christmas? Would he think that that was carrying the right to demonstrate a little too far? Does he accept that there is a balance to be struck?

Mr. Kaufman: Of course, there is a balance to be struck, but it will not be struck by the provisions in the Bill because the police will define subjectively what "serious disruption" means. All that I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that there are powers already in the law to deal with the disturbance that he mentions. It was he who chose the example of Selfridges and the oranges. It was a good example because it shows that he regards shopping as more important than the right, in a democracy, of peaceful protest. If that is his point of view, it is as well that we should know that it is.
Apart from odd corners, this is in parts a silly Bill and in parts a pointless Bill, but above all it is a dangerous Bill. The Home Secretary talks of a Government strategy for dealing with crime but in fact the Government have no strategy for dealing with crime. It is likely that the main outcome of the crime prevention seminar at No. 10 last week, in so far as it has any result at all, is that burgled householders will find it even more difficult in future to get their insurance companies to pay up. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, now coming substantially into force, imposes bureaucratic burdens that will reduce police effectiveness. The Public Order Bill will reduce further that effectiveness, through dragging substantial numbers of police away from fighting real crime to supervising and interfering with the rights of free peaceful assembly, and it will do so against the wishes of the police themselves.
What do police who have been involved in coping with disorder say about the underlying causes of that disorder? In his report on the Handsworth riots, Chief Constable Dear declared:

I would never seek to minimise the problems of being young, black and unemployed in a decaying inner city environment. Black youths suffer particularly from the effects of prejudice, unemployment and scarce resources. These and other ills cannot be ignored and deserve to be addressed by society as a whole.
There is not a word in the Bill, nor any other action by the Government, that addresses the ills that Chief Constable Dear says cannot be ignored.
Last month, Commander Alex Marnoch, who was in charge of Brixton at the time of last autumn's riots, and in whom the Home Secretary has such confidence that he is now being transferred and given responsibility for both the Palace of Westminster and Buckingham palace, slated:
if unemployment continues to rise and the stabilising middle-aged black population continues its exodus to safer areas, further major disturbances will be inevitable".
The article quoting Commander Marnoch stated:
He called for fresh initiatives from the Government, the local council, and education, housing and social services departments.
Commander Marnoch said:
'Unless there is an influx of extra jobs, or the population moves away, we are going to have serious problems.'
Yet there is not a word in the Bill, nor any other action by the Government, designed to ward off the further major inevitable disturbances of which he warns. Indeed, last month's housing investment programme allocations for capital spending on housing are only 29 per cent. of the level when Labour left office. Last month's rate support grant settlement for the partnership authorities increases by £400 million to £2,600 million the amount of rate support grant that the partnership authorities have lost under the Government. Youth unemployment in Britain stands at 1,250,000, nearly three times what it was under Labour. Nearly half a million of those under 25 have been out of work for over a year.
While those scandalous facts persist, no legislation will have any hope of dealing with the dreadful disorders from which this country has suffered so grievously in recent years and months. At the end of his report on the Handsworth riots, Chief Constable Dear quoted these words:
'Utopia is not a republic of fraternity to be taken by violence. Neither can it be taken by men who have no vision of better things for mankind.'
We in the Opposition reject the violence that is a curse upon the Britain whose values we cherish. We also reject the men and women who have no vision, the men and women who sit on the Government Front Bench. I call upon the House to vote for the amendment.

6 pm

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) addressed the House for 49 minutes. For somewhat over half of that time we heard what might be looked upon as the right hon. Member's set speech on crime. It seemed to me to have precious little to do with the Bill that we are debating, although it may have a considerable amount to do with consolidating the right hon. Gentleman's position in his party. He spent the other half of that time making what seemed to me to be Committee points. With great respect, most of them were wrong, certainly as regards affray and clause 5. At no stage did the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for his announcement that the Opposition intend to divide the House against the Bill.
Before I turn to the Bill, upon which I intend to speak briefly, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that


I am sure that a general debate on crime would be welcomed, but that is not what we are debating today. In answer to his set speech on crime, I would point out to him that today there are 13,000 more policemen than there were when his party was in office, and that we are spending a third more, in real terms, on the police than was spent at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and suggested that one ought not to talk about increases in proposed expenditure. He ought to talk to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to all his colleagues. From 1979 to 1982 they did nothing but attack the present Government. However, their attack was based on the figures of proposed expenditure, for instance, upon education. I was told, not that we were spending more, but that we were cutting what was being spent; not on the basis that we were spending less than had been spent in the year before, but on the basis that we were spending less than it had been proposed by the previous Government should be spent on education. Therefore, the Opposition must get their act together.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's dissertation on the Shops Bill, I appreciate that he likes to parade his intelligence before the House, but he took rather a long time to tell us that if shops were not open there would be no shoplifting! That point may be factually accurate, but it does not add to this debate. I turn, therefore, to the Bill that we are debating.
There are two principles upon which both sides of the House may be able to agree. First, the maintenance of public order—the right for people to be able to walk about freely and to pursue their lives without fear of attack and intimidation, and particularly without fear of attack from the mob—is a fundamental responsibility of the Government. Secondly, the traditional freedom to protest, march and demonstrate is an equally important right, as is the right peacefully to picket. Those rights must be preserved in a democratic society. However, while we preserve those rights, we must safeguard the rights of other people so that the right to protest peacefully is conducted without interference, violence, intimidation or threats, and without infringing the rights of other citizens. That balance, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred this afternoon, is the balance that the Bill tries to assess.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Gorton will at least agree with me that we as a society are not being very successful about either of those issues. One has only to consider the degree of hooliganism and the riots in various areas of this country to realise that our society has not been very successful in maintaining order so that people can go about their lives without fear and intimidation. The scenes at the Warrington Messenger and during the miners' dispute show that we have not been successful in creating a balance between, on the one hand, the right to picket peacefully, and on the other the right not to be intimidated by threats. These are basic problems which the House should consider and which the Bill attempts to tackle.
The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the inadequacies of the existing law are not nearly so important in terms of controlling football hooliganism and maintaining public order as is the inability to enforce the existing law. I repeat, therefore, that it is far more relevant

that now there are 13,000 more policemen than anything that the Bill can do. However, the fact that there are inadequacies and difficulties over enforcing the existing law does not mean that there are not certain areas of the law that are inadequate and need to be reformed. They have been identified by the Law Commission, by the Government and by Select Committee on Home Affairs, and they are referred to in the Bill. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, the Bill attempts to tackle the problems without the graphic widening of police powers that he suggests.
Many other hon. Members want to speak in this debate. I intend to deal with parts I and IV. I understand that part I follows the Law Commission's proposals. It is a sensible codification of the common law. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I suggest that he should speak to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) who is about to leave the Chamber. If he does so, I think he will find that he was wrong about the point that he made concerning affray. The law, as provided for in the Bill, on both riot and affray is consistent with the current law and the Law Commission's proposals. In any event, this is a Committee point. I may be wrong, but I am prepared to risk saying that I believe that I am right and that the law on affray at the moment is as is set out in the Bill.
As for clause 5, I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that there is room for argument about whether it is necessary to show that what was done was with the belief that it was likely to harass someone, or whether it is necessary to call witnesses to prove that someone has been harassed. But these are Committee points. There is genuine concern about a type of behaviour which causes alarm and harassment, but which is not dealt with at the moment. Again with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his points on clause 5 were completely misconceived. He said that, because one cannot arrest a person without a warrant, it is similar to saying that one cannot proceed against him for that offence.
As for part II, the major part of the Bill, the background against which we have to consider it is the enormous increase in demonstrations and marches of all kinds in recent years. We are told that during the last 20 years there has been a fourfold increase in marches and demonstrations in London, and that during the last 10 years they have doubled. Demonstrations and marches take a great deal of police time and money. This has an enormous effect upon police morale. Saturday after Saturday and Sunday after Sunday large numbers of policemen are involved in policing demonstrations and marches. It is right, therefore, to examine whether the balance is right, or whether it can be varied to relieve the police of those problems.
The House ought to accept that "serious disorder" is not the only ground on which the police may impose conditions. The volume of traffic and the way in which people move around the country compared with 1936 makes serious disruption of the life of a community an equally fair test in deciding where the balance lies between the rights of the protester and the rights of the individual.
The Bill therefore needs to be tested against three questions. First, should those who organise marches have to give notice? Secondly, should there be a general power to impose conditions on the basis of serious disruption as well as serious disorder? Thirdly, should those conditions as a whole be applicable to static demonstrations as well as to marches? Any sensible assessment of those three


questions leads to the answer, yes, there is a case for asking those who organise marches to give notice; yes, there is a case for imposing conditions affecting serious disruption as well as serious disorder; and yes, there is a case for imposing similar conditions on demonstrations.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not give way. I am trying to make a short speech. I have almost finished, so it would be unfair to give way.
There may be arguments about whether seven days' notice is the right length, but again that is a Committee point. Many people have argued for the right to give notice to the police. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is worried about the additional pressures that will be put on the police, but surely it is better for the police to be informed in advance of marches and to be able to discuss informally with those organising them the routes to be taken to reduce the risk of disorder than to have the pressure of having to police at short notice marches over which the police have not been consulted.
Surely it is right that we should allow conditions to be imposed on the number, location and duration of demonstrations. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is an interference with the right to peaceful protest, but one must remember that those conditions can be imposed only where the police have reason to believe that there is likely to be serious disorder. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the conditions imposed by the police when they fear serious disorder are a direct attack not on the fundamental right to picket or to protest peacefully, but on the fundamental right, which does not exist, to cause serious disorder, damage and disruption to others. One cannot look at the power to impose the condition without looking at the basis on which it is made. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman's amendment has three parts. First, it declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because of the general increase in crime, which is irrelevant to the Bill. Secondly, it says that the Bill will not be effective in preventing disorder. Much of that is a matter of numbers rather than of the law. It goes on to say that the Bill will divert scarce police resources into this area. By requiring advance notice, by giving the power to impose conditions where the police believe disorder will occur, the Bill will not divert scarce police resources from other areas, but will in fact allow fewer people to be involved in policing demonstrations and more to be involved in other work. At the same time, the amendment says that the Bill seriously undermines traditional civil liberties. It is not civil liberties that are undermined by the Bill, only the abuse of civil liberties where those liberties are used in such a way as to intimidate or attack the rights of others.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) underlined how necessary it is to strike a balance between the need to protect public order and civil liberties. Of course, that is correct and all of us can accept that. But the Opposition's complaint—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made it extremely effectively—is that almost every aspect of the Bill enlarges police powers and may diminish civil

liberties while no measures are being taken to try to restore the balance. It is my right hon. Friend who is seeking to do that.
It is illustrative of the Government's attitude to these matters that the first Bill to be introduced since the Christmas recess, after all the experience that we have had over the past year or two, should be one that enlarges the power of the police, often without the police wishing to have their powers enlarged, and diminishes the rights of protest and does so in the face of much opinion—Liberal as well as Labour—throughout Britain. That is the major defect of the Bill which my right hon. Friend has so skilfully underlined.
The Home Secretary said that we must not act in panic or anger in dealing with such matters and I am sure that when he says that he means it. But some aspects of the Bill are undertaken and presented to the House in panic or anger, or at least as a result of panic and anger, as, for example, that which was felt in many quarters during the miners' strike. I remember vividly how panic and anger was pressed into the service of the Government on some of those occasions.
I remember the terrible night on which someone was killed when a boulder was pushed off a bridge in Wales just next door to my constituency. That was a tragic and terrible affair. I remember the panic in which the prosecution took place. I remember the charge of murder and the Prime Minister appearing on television that night and saying that it was murder. I remember the chief of police saying that it was murder. I remember the mood in my constituency at the time that those things happened and the mood in the court case that occurred soon after. I remember how the Director of Public Prosecutions, as some of us believed, went ahead with the prosecution in a mood of panic and anger, and how the jury, I am sorry to say, were also affected by panic and anger, as can happen.
But thanks to British justice—and all honour to those who did it—thanks to the Appeal Court and thanks to what happened when the matter was taken to the House of Lords, the charge of murder was changed to manslaughter, as it should have been from the beginning. That should he a lesson to us all. The fact that a person was killed was the worst part of the tragedy but the families concerned also suffered a terrible tragedy and I am glad to say that eventually the British courts upheld the proper sense of proportion. That is what we seek to maintain in the Bill and that is what my right hon. Friend was striving to sustain, and he did it extremely well.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying in some way to diminish the gravity of the offence committed by those who toppled a boulder over a bridge into a car?

Mr. Foot: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should make that intervention when I have underlined exactly the opposite part of the case. Indeed, I said so at the time and I have said so on every occasion that I have referred to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has referred to the same matter. We have never diminished the horror of that event, but that is not a reason for British courts to operate in an atmosphere of panic and anger. That is what I was saying. It is a great credit to the British judicial system that eventually the highest court in the land said


that those of us who protested at the time were right and not some of those who joined the panic and anger. We should deal with all such matters as coolly as possible and not seek to exaggerate the dangers.
The Government have rushed ahead with establishing new penalties and crimes which interfere with the rights of protest. The new charge of disorderly conduct was criticised when it was proposed, not only by my right hon. Friend and the Labour party, although we criticised it strongly—not in the terms in which it was put in the White Paper, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said—and a fair judgment was made about that. According to The Times, there was a change. I do not know whether the accounts are correct. I know how reticent the Secretary of State has to be in revealing discussion in his Department but according to The Times his Department objected originally to the way in which the new charge of disorderly conduct was proposed. That may be a complete fiction on the part of The Times and may be dismissed, but I believe that many people in his Department rightly had anxieties about giving the police these powers which, in some instances, the police do not want. They may add to one of the many perils to our public order at present—the deepening division between the public and police in many areas. We must overcome that by Acts of Parliament, wisdom and a lack of panic and anger in dealing with such questions, including picketing.
It is rather suprising that the right hon. Gentleman said so much about picketing. He said that there has been no panic and anger but there has been a little action in panic and anger in proposing to deal with picketing under the Bill. The Bill does not say that it will deal with that at all. There is no reference in the decription of the Bill to dealing with picketing, and the name of the Secretary of State for Employment does not even appear in it. As far as I know, this is the first time that, in a Bill dealing with picketing, the Secretary of State for Employment has not had any say. We know that we have a peculiar Secretary of State for Employment in the other place, and one with other interests. A Bill to deal with picketing, its consequences and how the policing of it may be operated, has been introduced without any say by the Department of Employment in the matter. That means to say that the Government and the Home Secretary in particular did not make any effort to have any discussions with the trade unions about these provisions. It would have been more sensible if they had, because some of the parts of the Bill dealing with picketing will not be workable.
There are also major changes in the way that demonstrations can take place and are governed by police decisions. Again, the police do not necessarily want this power, but if they do, they are unwise. I believe that many policemen would prefer the process of decision-making to be similar to that in Scotland. There, matters are referred to the local authorities rather than the police, and we should consider extending that provision to this country. It is a great mistake in a Bill that generally enlarges the powers of the police at the same time greatly to interfere with the rights of demonstration. It puts the police into the position of having to judge which demonstrations are to be tolerated and allowed in particular circumstances.
The balance is against the Government. There was a good leading article in The Guardian when the Bill was published at the beginning of December and its conclusion still stands. It said:
Overriding all these serious problems, however, are the bill's new powers for advance police control over meetings, assemblies and mass pickets. Let there be no mincing of words. These powers mean that the police will be able to decide whether crowds of every kind can gather. They will undoubtedly be used to stop strikers from picketing peacefully. They will undoubtedly be used to stop protesters from gathering outside the South African embassy. They will undoubtedly be used against people who gather at nuclear bases. They will make protesting citizens into licensed visitors to their own streets. Yet it need not be so, not if the bill contained a positive right to assemble and march.
The last provision would require a balanced approach, but there is none in the Bill. The Government have not sought to protect the right to demonstrate as they should have done and therefore the Bill has rightly been condemned by all champions of civil liberties.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted from The Guardian leader:
They will undoubtedly be used to stop strikers from picketing peacefully.
The right hon. Gentleman is referring to clause 12, so will he point out, under that clause, where and how that can be so?

Mr. Foot: The police have the power, in certain circumstances, to say whether they will allow a demonstration, and that proves my point. The hon. Gentleman can join me. If he wishes picketing to be dealt with separately, that can be done. That would be the proper way to go about it. It is not right for the Government to have included propositions to govern picketing, as they have done, without any consideration of the contrary arguments and the general points concerned. As a result, there will be grave future industrial disputes about whether the Bill infringes the right, which many people thought was absolute, to picket peacefully. I am not talking about picketing with violence, because that is against the common law. Already, powers exist for dealing with that, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South said.
I shall comment now on another aspect of the Bill, which I dare say was a reason why the Government introduced the Bill so speedily—I am not objecting on that account. There has been tremendous publicity about football hooliganism and the Government have had to take some action. I do not object to some of the propositions, but some, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said, are unworkable and will not assist in solving the problem, but will make it more acute. It would have been more sensible to think out a proper solution.
Again, these provisions are unbalanced, because dealing with football hooliganism is only one aspect of the matter. We should ensure that football thrives. I sometimes think that the Government think that the way to stamp out football hooliganism is to stamp out football. If they do not take a whole series of other actions, football will be stamped out. The imposition of demands on both small and large football clubs are so great that the Government will drive many of them out of business. What will happen to law and order then? What happens if large numbers of football clubs cannot keep going? Many are trembling on the verge of bankruptcy now.
After the terrible tragedy at Bradford, lessons had to be learned. The Government should have come forward then


and offered financial assistance to all football clubs to enable them to carry out the measures required to make their premises safe. In my constituency there are not so many football clubs as small rugby clubs. Rightly, they are having to carry out new safety provisions as soon as possible, but they do not have enough money and therefore should have much more assistance from the Government, which would not cost all that much. The Welsh Sports Council has only about £3·5 million to spend and therefore could not possibly deal with the problem. However, if the Government had any imagination they could deal with the problem. The Home Secretary should not have introduced such restrictive measures without also introducing measures that would have allowed football clubs to carry on and to prosper.
This is not a minor matter. If many football clubs were driven to bankruptcy, the addition to hooliganism and to the dangers of riot or people expressing their feelings in violent ways would be enormous, but the Government do not make such book-keeping or understand it. After the Bradford disaster, they told the football clubs that they must speedily put their houses in order and put in new stands so that such things would never again occur. The Government are a good deal swifter in telling football clubs that they must spend money that they do not have in making their grounds safe than they are in dealing with manufacturers who, for example, offend against health and safety provisions. That is a different affair. The Government linger, do not take any action, cut the number of inspectors and do not mind if there are more breaches of the law.
I do not understand why the Government have such a hatred of football—perhaps it is because no one in the Cabinet understands what football is about or what happens at the weekends. Huge numbers of people depend for their excitement and interest on the way in which sport is conducted. All that the Government do is impose a few impractical restrictions—not all of the restrictions are impractical—and say that football clubs must carry them out. The Government will not give the clubs any aid to do so, and seem to feel that if the clubs go bankrupt, so much the better, because that is how the market system works. That is a mad way to deal with such a critical position.
The inner cities may have a worse problem, but other parts which are not described as inner cities face the same problem. In my constituency we have had 20 per cent. unemployment since 1979, and three out of four young people have never had a hope of a job in the area. That is the case in many parts, not only in inner cities. The Government have taken the largest amount of rate support grant from our areas—just as they have taken huge resources from the partnership areas—although we are hit by the heaviest unemployment, and are threatened with the gravest forms of disorder.
The huge increase in crime is not an accident, nor utterly undecipherable. I am not saying that it is all due to one cause, but anyone who imagines that mass unemployment, especially among young people, does not contribute to an atmosphere in which crime grows has not the faintest notion of the mood that prevails in many areas today. The division between north and south, or however it is described, is a division between favoured areas and those which are left to take the Government's brutalities on the chin and on every other part of their industrial

anatomy. Those areas face the dangers, but the Government have not a glimmer of understanding for them.
The Government talk of balance in these matters. It may be no coincidence that the Bill is being introduced this Session when the greatest judge we have had in recent years retires from the Bench. I wish that the Government had listened to what Lord Scarman had to say, instead of to those who urged them to introduce the Bill. Lord Scarman held a balanced view. He said:
The social conditions in Brixton—many of which are to be found in other inner city areas—do not provide an excuse for disorder. They cannot justify attacks on the police in the streets, arson or riot.
Labour Members reiterate that. Lord Scarman continued:
At the same time the disorders in Brixton cannot be fully understood unless they are seen in the context of complex political, social and economic factors. In analysing communal disturbances such as those in Brixton and elsewhere, to ignore the existence of those factors is to put the nation in peril 
Lord Scarman made many proposals, many of which have never been carried out. I have not the slightest doubt what his view would be about the withdrawal of money from inner cities and areas such as my constituency. I have little doubt of the contempt he would have for this pitiful measure to deal with such a giant disease.

Mr. John Wheeler: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who displayed his immense anxiety for liberty and freedom. That anxiety is as keenly felt by hon. Members on this side of the House as by the right hon. Gentleman. He raised many points about the Bill, but the Bill seeks to balance the rights of people and to define their freedoms and obligations.
This is not a hasty piece of legislation, as has sometimes been implied in the debate so far. It emerges from one of the most careful and profound considerations which began when my right hon. Friend, now Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords, introduced a review of public order in 1979. Many people, groups and institutions have contributed to the work of the review, the inquiry and the Bill. They include groups who have already been referred to, such as the Associations of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales, and of Scotland. They were carefully consulted, and as a consequence of some of their suggestions the proposals were amended before coming to the House for our detailed consideration. The Police Federation of England and Wales submitted a substantial review on public order, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took into account. Lord Scarman's report has also contributed to the Bill, as has the report of the Law Commission on public order offences, and the works of many other bodies and institutions.
Clearly, the Bill touches on important, difficult and controversial matters affecting freedom and liberty, but the degree of contribution to its clauses has been considerable during recent years. The Bill does not markedly depart from our philosophy of policing. On the contrary, an underpinning principle of the Bill is that the police will continue to employ the minimum force in the preservation of public order on the streets. The Bill does not dramatically extend police powers, but represents a careful effort to uphold traditional freedoms, such as the


right to protest, march and picket peaceably, within a framework of law. Surely that is what we all want to achieve.
I am especially pleased to see a better definition of riot, and of the supporting offences of affray and disorderly conduct. The old common law definitions were in need of review. We should remember that riot involves the deployment of 12 or more people committing grave and serious offences. The Bill gives courts greater sentencing flexibility, and reflects the gravity of the offence of riot. It is right that it should be defined as one of the rarest and least prosecuted offences, and I hope that that will always be so.
The offence of disorderly conduct, which is new and is at the bottom of the scale of crimes that may be committed, is a necessary offence that should be included on the statute book. All hon. Members will have experienced residents' associations complaining about what a minority of people, usually youths, have done to terrify an estate and disrupt the peace and tranquillity of a community. We all know of the difficulty of the police in dealing with such incidents. The offence of disorderly conduct is satisfactorily set out.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it was sensible to drop the word "substantial" which appeared in the White Paper. I speak from the point of view of one who has served as a magistrate and has had to try cases. It is extremely difficult for a court to say whether what occurred was "substantial" because it is a question of debate, degree and interpretation of what "substantial" may mean. The offence of disorderly conduct as defined in the Bill makes it clear that there must be a victim or group of victims who have originated the complaint to the police. It has been said in the House and elsewhere that this is a type of sus law offence. I was Chairman of the Select Committee that prepared the report that led to the House repealing the sus law.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a requirement in clause 5 that someone—presumably a member of the public—should make a complaint to the police. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would point out that provision, because I have overlooked it.

Mr. Wheeler: The clause does not specifically say—

Mr. Carlile: Then why say that it does?

Mr. Wheeler: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue, he will perhaps understand my point. Of course the clause does not state that there shall be a victim. I suggest that that is not said in almost all of the criminal law. The provisions create a series of offences based upon events. It is the prosecution's duty to produce the evidence to buttress its case before the courts. The offence of disorderly conduct is not a victimless crime. It requires a group of people or an individual to pose a complaint to the police and say, "We have trouble on our council estate. We need your attendance. We need you to take some action."

Mr. John Ryman: Surely that is an oversimplification. There are many cases in which prosecutions are brought in which, for one reason or

another, the victim has not complained or cannot be traced. The evidence to the prosecution therefore consists of a police observation or something like that. Is not the hon. Gentleman wrong in saying that there must be a victim to produce affirmative evidence of the offence?

Mr. Wheeler: There must be a victim, even if it is only the state. If a vehicle excise licence is not obtained, there is a loss of revenue and the victim is the community. It is in that context that I deploy the term "victim".
The disorderly conduct offence is not a new sus law. I was Chairman of the Select Committee that prepared a report that led eventually to the House repealing that part of the Vagrancy Act 1824 which so many of us thought offensive and undesirable. Clause 5 is in no way a sus law. If it were, I would determinedly oppose it. I welcome the provision. It will make a significant contribution towards improving the quality of life of many ordinary people, especially in the urban areas where they are often at a great disadvantage because of the conduct of a minority.
It is important that the police should be notified about marches and parades. It is a matter of debate whether it should be seven days' notice or less. During the 17 months between 12 February 1983 and 20 July 1984 there were 112 marches in the city of Westminster in the heart of London requiring the deployment of more than 100 officers of the Metropolitan police. When a large march is taking place and the resources of the police have to be called in from all over the Metropolitan police area—this affects the lives of people elsewhere in London who are thus deprived of a police presence—it is reasonable that the police should have the opportunity to prepare for the march and to summon their resources.
The new power to deal with static demonstrations is reasonable and should help the police to control the type of events that cause distress. I remind hon. Members of the particularly unpleasant incident in St. James's square a year ago, which had such awesome consequences. I welcome especially the clause dealing with incitement to racial hatred. I strongly believe that people of every race and colour deserve the protection of the law against racial abuse and the kind of hate campaigns that some hon. Members, especially those from inner London, know can occur. It is right to give reasonable protection to all sections of the community. I welcome the provision to cover behaviour, words or written material intended to cause racial hatred.
The proposal for a new exclusion order system, which depends to some extent on the provision of a photograph, is reasonable and should offer some deterrence to football hooliganism. There is nothing new in this, because, 85 years ago, a black book was maintained in most police stations containing the photographs of habitual drunkards who caused disorder on the streets. Police officers who were going out on duty could peruse the photographs to ascertain those people from whom they might expect trouble and the action that they might need to take. With this measure the police will be able to use photographs through their collators' offices to prevent hooligans from going to football matches.
The Bill will be subject to the inevitable scrutiny of the Standing Committee, but it is a balanced package which seeks to ensure that the police and the courts have reasonable, but fair, powers. It tries to deal with the most controversial aspects of public life—the use of the


highway and the behaviour of people on it. I commend the legislation. I believe that it will be successful in reaching its objectives.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) was right to remind the House that the genesis of the Bill was not recent. Since Lord Whitelaw initiated the inquiry into public order, a succession of events have accentuated the need for the review that was introduced in the wake of the Southall riots. From time to time the Government give the impression, not of carrying out a deliberate review, but of responding by legislation to events as they arise. I take no general exception to that—indeed, the alliance supported, for the most part, the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 to deal with football hooliganism. This Bill extends those proposals.
I listened with great attention to the Home Secretary, in the hope that he would underline and explain the Government's basic philosophy and objective in bringing forward this legislation with its sweeping changes in the codification of the old common law offences—in the light of the recommendations of the Law Commission—and with its important and, in some respects, controversial amendments to the Public Order Act 1936.
The introduction by the Home Secretary, in which he set out his thinking, was extremely exiguous. He merely stated that there were two considerations: first, that the citizen should be able to pursue his lawful business without interference or disruption by others exercising unreasonable means to threaten; and, secondly, that there should be rights of assembly. He did not say how he felt that the changes he was proposing in the Bill would increase police effectiveness to control an unacceptable breakdown of public order. That was the penumbra of his speech that was missing. It leads one to take the view that the Bill contains an element of gesture which is inappropriate when considering its merits.
The Government too often confuse law and order by linking them inextricably together. Of course it is right that the framework of the law should be such as to enable those who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining the law to do their job effectively. We must express considerable doubt about whether mere changes in the law render more effective the work of the law enforcement agencies. There is a strong onus of proof on those who seek to make changes in the law which in some respects curtail established principles and in others change practices and laws which over the years have been found adequate to provide for the needs of the police.
The Home Secretary has not explained the deficiencies in the existing public order law, or the fact that representations were made by some bodies and individuals, or why he thought it right to depart from the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper. His speech was empty of argument to persuade me that the changes are necessary or desirable. The right hon. Gentleman has conceded somewhat too much to those who feel less sensitive than they should about the rights of the individual in a democratic society. He produced a most convoluted argument to show that his proposal to extend controls over static assemblies and marches to those who threatened coercion was in some way a libertarian

measure. He did not face the difficulty that traditionally the police have found little problem in controlling public meetings by the use of the criminal law.
The increase in the number of public demonstrations is not indicative of a growing problem of control. They might involve more police than before, and that perhaps is inevitable if we are to maintain the right of freedom of assembly to which we are, I believe, committed.
The common law powers, in particular the breach of the peace powers, available to the police have worked relatively well, and there is not the same pressing need for an extension of the controls contained in the Public Order Act 1936 as there was perceived to be in 1936. Merely because 50 years have elapsed is not a good reason, as the Home Secretary seemed to suggest, for enlarging the powers in the way that he proposes.
The issue which the Home Secretary hinted—he never stated it—was crucial in his thinking was the fact that it was necessary to exercise prior restraint over demonstrations which might threaten a breach of public order. I presume he feels that the common law remedies which have been customarily invoked by the police to deal with static assemblies are inadequate because they are exercised ex post facto. That is not strictly the case, because breach of the peace powers can be invoked before trouble occurs.
The argument about the need for such powers would have carried greater weight if the Government had shown the slightest inclination to use the civil powers which they took to themselves to control mass picketing during the miners' strike. It was conspicuous that those civil powers were not used. One can only assume that that was because the Government felt that it was inappropriate to use them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman always provides a descant to my speech, and because I enjoy his speeches I am delighted to give way.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman frequently gets his facts wrong, but he is a nice chap and I always like listening to him. Civil powers belong to the employers in disputes, and they cannot be invoked by the Government acting as the Government.

Mr. Maclennan: The point at issue is whether the powers, be they civil or criminal, are effective. The Government went to great lengths to persuade the House that the civil power should be amended to deal with the circumstances which we now appear to be having to deal with by amending the criminal law. I am not persuaded that the Government were wrong to effect that change in the civil law, but they cannot claim that the civil law failed during the miners' strike and therefore the criminal law must be amended, because they never used the civil law.

Mr. Hogg: The Government do not have the power to invoke the civil law; that is for the employer.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is not as naive as he would sometimes like us to believe when he suggests that there was no communication between the Government and the chairman of the affected nationalised steel and coal industries.

Mr. Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position on this matter? It is accepted by the National Union of Mineworkers—the NUM suggested it—that six was a reasonable number of peaceful pickets. If a great


mob of people who are likely physically to try to prevent others from going into work are standing beside those six and blocking the way, does his party oppose the fact that the police should have the power to say, "No, you must stand over there as one of the conditions of your demonstration"?

Mr. Maclennan: The police already have the power to take action if they apprehend that a breach of the peace will result from the presence of more than six pickets. It is an offence to cause a breach of the peace. It is that provision that gives the police the authority that they enjoy.
I supported the Government's view that those who considered that their civil liberties or those of their employees were at risk could invoke the civil law. I am not persuaded that the balance of the argument favours giving the police the power in respect of static assemblies that the Bill proposes. A fine balance must be struck between the need to protect the right of freedom of expresssion and the right to peaceful assembly in association with others, and the duty to protect individuals going about their lawful business from violence, intimidation and harassment. The Government have not dispatched the onus of showing that the law that distinguished between marches and static assembly 50 years ago should be altered.
The Government have not only extended the controls to static assembly, but they have changed the grounds on which the police may exercise controls on marches. The scope of the Public Order Act 1936 has been widened unacceptably. It is no longer confined to circumstances where the police believe that there will be serious risk of public disorder. The additional circumstance, where serious disruption to community life is feared, or where it is feared that an individual could be faced with intimidation or coercion, are unacceptable extensions of that power.
We agree that the requirement of notification is acceptable in principle, although we can argue in Committee about the length of time. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) got it right when he distinguished between the Scottish case and that of England. Six clear days' notice is too long. The effectiveness of demonstration often comes from its spontaneity, but we can pursue that point in Committee.
My principal anxiety is that the Government have not given weight to the inhibition which the controls on assemblies and marches will place on freedom of expression. It is easy to drive opposition underground, but that can be considerably more dangerous to society than opposition that is freely expressed in an orderly way by a group of people appearing in public. The Government should not curtail freedom of assembly without producing more evidence to suggest that curtailment will have the desired effect.
I wish to discuss the new offence of disorderly conduct as defined in clause 5, which differs from the definition in the White Paper. This is one of the Government's more risky steps in the Bill and one which has been taken without any compelling reason. The alliance supported the view that there was a need for codification of the old common law offences, and we broadly supported the definitions of those new offences in the White Paper. We believe that there is a case for amending section 5 of the

Public Order Act 1936 to create the new offences in clauses 4 and 5. However, the definitions in clause 5 are alarming.
With regard to disorderly conduct, when the White Paper was published we supported the view that there was a need to create an offence punishable by a fine for threatening or abusive words or behaviour which caused substantial alarm, harassment or distress. There is no such requirement in the Bill.
The Government strongly supported the original proposals in the White Paper, which set out the proposed limitations on the new offence. Paragraph 3·26 of the White Paper states:
The Government recognises that there would be justifiable objections to a wide extension of the criminal law which might catch conduct not deserving of criminal sanctions. For this reason the offence contains the safeguard that the behaviour must actually cause someone to feel alarmed, harassed or distressed (not that it is merely likely to do so). Any degree of annoyance or disturbance will not suffice: because the offence would be concerned primarily to protect the weak and vulnerable, the proposed definition requires evidence that the victim suffered substantial alarm, harassment or distress.
The definition is not simply a matter for the Committee. An important issue of principle is raised. The Bill hands to the police a wide discretionary power which, if used insensitively, could degenerate into a serious exacerbation of the relations that exist between the more junior members of the police who come into contact with the public and those who are most likely to be involved in that type of offence, such as young people and ethnic minorities.
It is especially disturbing that the police will not be required to produce in court the person who is alleged to have been alarmed. In fact, there is no requirement that anyone has to be alarmed. The clause is sufficiently seriously defective to call into question whether the Bill should be supported on Second Reading. However, my objections are wider than that. The alliance supports the amendment tabled by the Labour party, and we broadly adopt its reasoning.
There have been some striking breakdowns of public order in Britain in recent years, which have understandably given rise to considerable public disquiet. Before we legislate to change the law, it is important to show that the proposed changes will produce the necessary effect. The Government did not discharge that duty in the speech of the Home Secretary tonight.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) say how the alliance will vote tonight, because I was not sure about the position from the arguments that he put. However, the hon. Gentleman must be grateful that he succeeded in doubling the representation of his party in the House today when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) arrived during his speech. His speech showed the problems of the alliance, which does not know which way it is going on this and on many other issues.
I welcome the proposals in the Bill. I also welcome not only the Government's commitment but the Prime Minister's personal commitment to making law and order more relevant and giving it a high priority. We should welcome the holding of the conference last week to highlight the problems of law and order. That is what the public demands.
During the Second Reading debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, I spoke about the fine balance between the powers of police officers to carry out their duties and the work that the public expects of them and the civil rights of individuals. I said on that occasion—and I repeated it in Committee—that the civil rights lobby seemed to be winning the day on many occasions. I hope that when this Bill goes to Committee the Government will reject any moves to alter the emphasis of the Bill towards the civil liberties lobby. During the 59 Committee sittings of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, it was alarming to see that nearly all the Opposition amendments had the stamp of the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Mr. Alex Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman was so alarmed by the amendments tabled to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, why did he not express his alarm until about the 56th sitting of the Committee?

Mr. Hawksley: Had the hon. Gentleman attended the Committee as often as I did, he would have realised that I raised various matters in Committee. I was certainly there much more often than he was. It was interesting to hear the Opposition accuse the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill of creating bureaucracy for the police force, when their amendments to include so-called safeguards provided such bureaucracy. I do not understand how the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) could have made that point earlier today.
The public demand that the police have the power to stop a small minority in society—whether they be football hooligans, illegal pickets or a threatening mob of youths—intimidating the young and the elderly and endangering innocent lives or their property. People want action and they believe that this legislation will give them action. The right of an individual to live in peace without threat to his life or his property must be protected by the House, and this legislation will do so.
Television has reported acts of violence, terrorist acts which cause anxiety to many members of the public. It is unacceptable that many of those acts do not result in court appearances. When they do, we often discover that the powers which we thought existed do not exist. That is why we must give the police the additional powers that the Bill suggests. The need for the new offence of disorderly behaviour will be clear to anyone who has watched what has happened on television and seen in their homes acts which the public believe should be stopped.
With other Members of Parliament, I received literature from the NCCL in preparation for today's debate. I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will, like me, have received a letter from the Shropshire and Mid-Wales branch of the NCCL, which states that the new proposals would mean:
You could be arrested for: organising a demonstration without police permission, taking part in a demonstration that has been banned, ignoring police conditions … ignoring police directions.
So what? Most of my electors would be grateful if the police had those powers if it meant that demonstrations would show respect for their property and for their lives. They believe that the police would use those powers wisely. It worries me that a body such as the NCCL should believe that citizens go round in fear of being mugged or arrested by the police. That is not the case in my constituency. My constituents fear being mugged and attacked, and believe that the police act as a deterrent and

are their friends. That is how it should be; that is how the majority of the public believe it is. They do not accept the NCCL's arguments on that matter.
Those who oppose the legislation, especially its proposals on marches, are the same people who expect the police to respond under the present legislation when the National Front proposes to march through a sensitive area. They should support this legislation on marches and static demonstrations, because it gives the police the power to respond to the fears of those who live in the areas where marches are likely to occur.
Most hon. Members seem to believe that the sentences provided in the Bill are about right, although there has been criticism of one proposal. I am not worried about the sentences available under the legislation, but I question whether they will be used to their full. The public showed great admiration for Judge Michael Argyle when he sentenced a Chelsea football fan to life imprisonment. They believe that that example should be followed.

Mr. Kevin Barron: With regard to the Chelsea football supporter who was imprisoned for life for that vicious attack, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the law is likely to be ridiculed if, on appeal, that sentence is greatly reduced, which most people believe it will be? Is that not ridiculing the law instead of having sensible law?

Mr. Hawksley: I was about to say, without dealing with that case—although I admired the line taken by the judge—that we must ensure that the appeal judges respond to that sort of public attitude. We need tough sentencing.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for an hon. Member to support a sentence passed by a court of first instance when that sentence is subject to a pending appeal in which notice of appeal has already been filed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The sub judice rule does not apply when the House is considering legislation.

Mr. Hawksley: It is important to encourage and to support the judiciary in giving sentences that fit the crime. The time may come when the House considers the need not only for maximum sentences, but for minimum sentences, unless we see that the law is being used to the full. Our electors will insist that the House protects them.
One aspect of the Bill which causes me some concern—it will be considered in detail in Committee—is the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. We now have insurance and the Criminal Damages Act 1971 which help many people who would otherwise be out of pocket after their properties are damaged. I question whether, in this day and age, we need to retain that Act. Although riots may be less common under the new definition in clause 1, I should think that people could make their own arrangements to cover themselves against the risks covered in the Bill.
Also the Bill does not cover the people who deliberately trespass on private land with the purpose of committing a criminal offence. The National Farmers Union has brought that to our notice and I hope that the Committee will fill that gap in the Bill.
People have had enough. They have seen enough on television. They saw the violence by the miners last year.


They have seen enough of the hooliganism at football matches. They demand action. The Bill is a right response and I have great pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. David Clelland: I stand here today proud to represent the people of the Tyne Bridge constituency but conscious, as are we all, of the tragic events which brought about my presence in the House. My predecessor, Harry Cowans, was not only an excellent representative of the people and a first class Member of Parliament; he was a personal friend for many years. Harry and I met before we became members of the Labour party. We joined the party at about the same time. We served together on Gateshead county borough council and, following local government reorganisation, the Gateshead metropolitan borough council. We were even members of the same social club. It comes, therefore, as no surprise to me to learn that Harry was well respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Tyne Bridge, the House and the country are the poorer for his untimely departure.
I know that his wife Margaret and his family would wish me to express personally their deep appreciation to all those who have been so kind and who have expressed sympathy and sadness. It is a great comfort to his wife and family to be reminded so vividly of the high esteem in which that bonny lad from Tyneside was held by Members of the House and by the staff here.
In Harry's maiden speech to the House in November 1976 he spoke of the difficult task that he faced in filling the shoes of his predecessor, Lord Glenamara, or Ted Short, MP, as he then was. Harry lived up to that task. He gave good account of himself as a Member of Parliament and was loved and respected in his constituency. Indeed, only last week I attended a ceremony at which a Tyneside metro car was named Harry Cowans in his memory.
Now it is my turn to say, as Harry said in his maiden speech,
That is, indeed, an eminent and enviable record to follow."—[Official Report,24 November 1976; Vol. 921, c.111.]
My task will be to match that record and to represent the best interests of the people of Tyne Bridge. In so doing I shall follow in the very capable footsteps of Harry Cowans.
It will be my task to stand up and fight for the thousands of decent families in my constituency who suffer the frustration and indignity of unemployment, the thousands of young people who have been denied the opportunity to build decent lives for themselves, the thousands of elderly people who suffer from inadequate incomes and insecurity and the thousands who have jobs but also suffer from worry and insecurity as redundancy announcements become an almost daily occurrence.
As leader of Gateshead council for the last two years I know of the efforts by the local authorities in the area to overcome those and other problems. Many improvements have been made. I have also suffered the frustration of being prevented from progressing on anything like the scale necessary, by continual attacks on our rate support grant, capital spending and housing programmes.
Tyne Bridge constituency is contained within the Newcastle/Gateshead inner area. It is an inner city constituency with all the problems currently typical of

such areas, which are prominent in all our minds. Its people face the difficulties of escalating crime rates, plummeting housing starts, high unemployment and low incomes. Yet, despite these cruel ups and downs of inner city life, the people remain resilient and retain the Geordie friendliness and good humour which so impressed the many visitors to the constituency during the recent by-election campaign.
Unfortunately, some mistake our conviviality for contentment and our resilience for resignation. I say to the House that the people of our inner cities are neither content nor resigned to accepting that the problems cannot be resolved. Indeed, discontentment and a refusal to become resigned to accepting inner city conditions have too often spilt over into violence on city streets. It is the frustration of knowing that there can be—there ought to be—a better way of life for themselves and their families but being unable to achieve it that generates anger. It is the need, the desire to escape from the problems that too often drives people into drug or alcohol abuse.
If the problems of disorder in the cities are to be resolved, and if harmony is to prevail, more emphasis must be placed on tackling the causes rather than the effects. That does not mean that we should be soft on crime. I am not implying that the Bill is totally irrelevant to the problems. Indeed, I welcome the measures proposed to combat racism and the repugnant literature that promotes it. However, my constituents who suffer from such activities might well feel that it does not go far enough. I have always believed that prevention is better than cure and that rehabilitation is better than revenge.
In its present form the Bill is unlikely to promote better relationships between the police and the community. It gives chief constables, and in some cases more junior officers, the power to make political decisions and to exercise political judgments. It undermines traditional liberties. It is restrictive and will not achieve its goal. Worst of all, it diverts our attention from the real questions—why these problems have arisen in our society and how we so arrange things that we reverse the trends.
So long as we concentrate more of our time on talking about combating disorder than we do about creating the conditions in which disorder need not occur we are not using our time or our imaginations in the best interests of our children. They will inherit the consequences of our failures.
We have witnessed some ugly incidents in recent years and of course we cannot stand by while crime rises, riots break out and disorder threatens the peaceful lives of ordinary people. But equally—no, principally—we cannot ignore the link between rising unemployment, poverty and deteriorating social conditions with rising crime, vandalism and unrest, particularly in our inner cities.
We must take measures to cure the disease, not merely treat the symptoms. The measures should be designed to protect and enhance freedom and democracy, not—as I fear will happen if the Bill is enacted in its present form—damage civil freedoms and individual liberties while doing little or nothing to relieve the frustrations and tensions of inner city life.
The Home Secretary has said that public order is the essence of any civilised society. But surely, if order can be maintained only by increasingly punitive measures, it is an indication that civilised behaviour is deteriorating and that society itself is therefore becoming less civilised.


Last year was international youth year. Young people all over our country were encouraged to think about the society in which they lived and to develop an understanding of the importance of harmonious international relationships. Yet, despite some marvellous work—nowhere better than in my constituency—too many of our young people were unable to find contentment and were driven to violence, vandalism and crime.
This year has been designated as the international year for peace. We all hope and pray for peace, but if we want peace on our city streets we shall have to do more than hope. Peace is something for which we shall have to work, and in ways that the Bill does not address itself to or take into consideration. We must begin in earnest to encourage investment in Britain, to restore confidence and to bring new hope to the regions and the cities.
In 1979, we were offered hope and harmony, but a lack of hope and a growing pessimism have destroyed harmony and created discord and disorder. When we mobilise our construction industry to resolve the massive housing problems, many of which we inherited from the 1950s and 1960s, when we begin to show real support for our engineering and new technology industries, when we generate real jobs and meaningful training and when people can plan for their future because they have secure employment, the calls for new hope and harmony in the years of youth, peace and industry may be rewarded by some identifiable results.
In a truly civilised society, the Bill would be irrelevant. Therefore, the challenge to civilised people is to create conditions that make unnecessary the measures that are proposed in the Bill. That must be our real and only goal.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: It is with particular pleasure that I have the honour to congratulate the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on his maiden speech. I think that Members on both sides of the House will agree that it was a maiden speech in the finest traditions of the House, being short, to the point, and from the heart.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge will be the first to appreciate that Harry Cowans was held in great esteem and respect in this place. He managed to combine the ability to fight hard for his constituency and party with being well liked on both sides of the House. As I have said, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his maiden speech. It is obvious that he is a man to be watched. Anyone who can bring 30 members of the Labour party into the Chamber at 7·31 pm is bound to do well. The newly appointed Opposition Chief Whip is in his place, and I am sure that he will be watching the hon. Gentleman.
I turn to the less pleasant subject of public order. I welcome the Bill and I suspect that that welcome will be echoed throughout the country, especially by those who live on housing estates that have been subjected to the spiralling lawlessness of the past 10 years. I was disappointed when Opposition Members suggested that the Bill was ill thought out. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a panic measure that has been introduced because of the miners' strike. Labour Members should appeciate that consultations on public order legislation began as long ago as 1979.
I always find the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) at his most unnerving when he tries

to be nice, and he tried desperately to be nice this afternoon. I find it sickening when the Labour party masquerades as the party that cares for the aspirations of ordinary people. All in this House and all who watch television and read newspapers know that nothing could be further from the truth. We know what has been happening in the inner cities. We read reports about those who have been manipulating organised violence and intimidation. When it comes to the day of reckoning at the next general election and the electorate has to decide which party will form the next Government, perhaps it will ask where the Labour party was when the bricks were winging their way through the windows of miners' houses. Perhaps it will ask where the Labour party was when it came to condemning violence irrespective of its source.
On every occasion that the Government have brought legislation before the House to give the police the powers that they need so desperately to enforce the law and protect the citizen, what has the Labour party done? The answer is that it has voted against the proposed legislation. It even had the hypocrisy to vote against the prevention of terrorism legislation while almost at the same time condemning the bombing at Brighton. That is the party that is masquerading as the party of law and order. I believe that that charade will be seen through.
Labour Members have told us that they believe in civil liberties and the freedom of the individual. We know and they know for what their police committees stand. Civil liberties mean, in their terms, political control of the police.
I welcome the revamped offence of riot. It is only right and proper that its terms should have been changed to provide for 12 persons as opposed to three. Similarly, as a legal practitioner who prosecutes and defends, I am pleased that the law has been clarified and that a person of normal and reasonable firmness does not have to be present. The right hon. Member for Gorton seemed to think that that was a departure in the law. If he reads Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, especially page 737, he will find that it has been the law for quite some time.
I move on to the more important offences regarding and affecting ordinary people. We talk about flashpoints and picketing and all that is involved when serious public disorder breaks out—we have seen shocking violence on picket lines and there has been shocking violence, arid sometimes death, in public demonstrations—but although such events have increased in number over the past decade, it is merciful that they are still few arid far between. They constitute the flashpoints and they are the matters that the media like to play up, sometimes, sadly, out of all proportion.
The Bill deals with everyday occurrences of violence and hooliganism and that is one reason why it should be welcomed, especially by many of those who are living within council estates and are terrified of opening their doors at night. They are terrified of going out on to the streets for fear of being assaulted or mugged. That is not a generalisation and it happens to be a fact. Only this morning I was prosecuting in a case in which young people had terrorised a whole community. They had set out to burgle flats in the area where they live. Indeed, they burgled the same block of flats in which they live. One of the prosecution's difficulties was that it could not get witnesses to say that these youngsters were terrorising the community.

Mr. Alex Carlile: So the hon. Gentleman lost the case.

Mr. Hayes: I am happy to say not. One of the difficulties in such cases, especially those involving hooliganism and harassment on the streets, is that members of the public telephone the police to complain but are not prepared to attend court as witnesses. They decline to do so because they are frightened. That is unfortunate but it is something that I can understand. That is why the offence of disorderly conduct is ideal for that sort of situation.

Mr. Alex Carlile: For attempted burglary?

Mr. Hayes: The hon. and learned Gentleman should pay more attention. I was giving an example of what happens on estates where young people control law and order—perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is listening now and will learn something. It does happen, people are afraid to come out; that was the example I was giving to the hon. and learned Gentleman. When this legislation is on the statute book, there will be added protection for the public.
I can understand some of the fears voiced by hon. Members and the National Council for Civil Liberties about harassment being substantial. This was in the White Paper—I think the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) would agree with me on that point. There was always the view that perhaps the younger police officers could take advantage of certain situations. That happened with the sus law, which we had to abolish, and quite rightly. It was open to abuse. There is a thin dividing line between what is harassment, what is riot and what is boisterous behaviour. For this reason I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, who is replying, to consider this carefully when the Bill goes into Committee.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is an important point and I think the hon. Gentleman should not simply ask the Minister but tell us precisely what he would do. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do so, all his comments about recognising the doubts over this aspect of the Bill are simply pious nonsense. What would he do?

Mr. Hayes: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have just told him: the original word in the White Paper, "substantial", should be put in the legislation. The dividing line between boisterous behaviour, harassment and riot would then not be such a thin one.

Mr. Kaufman: Plus a victim.

Mr. Hayes: There is a very good reason why we cannot have a victim. I know that the right hon. Gentleman says that we should, as does the NCCL. People have been so frightened of their neighbours who have been terrifying them that they are not prepared to go to the police and become witnesses in court. Those of us who are practitioners recognise that this is a problem.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my hon. Friend not feel that he will have the same problem as our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in defining what "substantial" means and to what extent behaviour becomes substantial or less than substantial? Perhaps in those circumstances my hon. Friend will feel that it is better to leave the word out.

Mr. Hayes: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, who I know is very learned in these matters. However, by

putting in the word "substantial" the difference between boisterous behaviour, harassment and alarm is absolutely clear. That is the point I want to get across.
With regard to processions and marches, the Opposition say that the proposals are a major infringement of civil liberties. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the powers that are codified by the Bill are contained in section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936. There is now the sensible requirement for consultation—this is what it is effectively—and contact between the organisers of the marchers and the police. Therefore, any flashpoints or any difficulties are likely to be sorted out beforehand. This has been the experience in the past. Many organisers go to the police and report precisely what they are doing. In the past local authorities have consulted with the police on these matters and it is absolutely proper that the police and the police alone make the decision.
It has been suggested by the Opposition that it is a political decision. How can the police be making a political decision when they are asked under clause 12 to consider the following:
(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community"?
Where is the political decision?
The NCCL has compounded that lie. In its press release it states:
For the first time the police are going to be able to limit the duration, number or place at which an open air demonstration takes place on the grounds of serious public disorder, serious disruption to the life of the community, or intimidation. So a peaceful group of parents protesting outside the council offices about the lack of zebra crossings in their area, a picket outside a supermarket to persuade customers not to buy South African goods and even vigils outside churches could be moved on by the police even if there is no violence or threat of violence to persons or property.
Really, that is arrant nonsense.

Mr. Kaufman: No, it is not.

Mr. Hayes: I heard the right hon. Member for Gorton say, from a sedentary position, "No, it is not". I challenge him to look at clause 12 and tell the House how those examples from the NCCL briefing can possibly be banned within the terms of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity—he shakes his head. Is he afraid to do so? It is more likely that he is unable to do so. The truth is that there will be no more major infringements of any public liberty or freedom of expression than there have been since section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936.
I view with certain concern the new test on major disruption in the community and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this when replying. We must never allow that test to become just a convenience and nothing more than that. The protection of the people must always come first.
The last matter I would draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister is a point brought to the House's attention by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I found it quite impossible, listening to the hon. Member, to know whether he was speaking on behalf of the alliance, because we are not sure what the alliance is saying. A few weeks ago the hon. Member said that the SDP was all in favour of this legislation. Then we hear that the Liberal party is not in favour. Evidently, from what we understand, the alliance, for what it is worth, is completely split asunder on this


matter. For example, it appears that the Liberal party is against any form of requirement. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to make oneself heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much noise.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure that there is an interesting conversation taking place on the Opposition Benches and I imagine that something exciting will happen when so many hon. Members have been removed from the various bars.
One aspect of the provisions concerning marches and processions worries me. People should have the right to a judicial review. That is a reiteration of section 3 of the 1936 Act. The difficulty is that that can be expensive and slow. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that in Committee and see whether a legal aid fund could be established to help or, more importantly, will see whether some of the decisions could be transferred to a county or Crown court.
The Bill would in no way infringe civil liberties. It is an answer to the cry in the wilderness from many people in council estates who are desperately frightened because their estates have been turned into ghettoes of fear.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, arising out of the statement made earlier this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The House will recall that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he had seen any letter from British Aerospace about the meeting between the Secretary of State and the chief executive of British Aerospace. The Secretary of State replied that he personally had not received any such letter.
As the House will recall, there was repeated questioning of the Secretary of State, and the impression that he conveyed was that he was not aware of any letter having come to the Government from British Aerospace, In reply to a specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Secretary of State said—here I rely on my memory—"I am not aware of any letter from Lygo to anyone else either." I submit that that reply created the clear impression in the mind of the House that there had been no letter from British Aerospace to the Government, and questioning of the Secretary of State on that matter ceased.
I can only speak for myself, but I left the Chamber under the impression that the Government had rebutted the allegation that any letter had come from British Aerospace to the Government. The Secretary of State might claim that he was technically correct to say that no letter had been received from Lygo, but I am reliably informed—I do not think there is any dispute about this—that at noon today a letter was delivered by hand addressed to the Prime Minister, to No. 10 Downing street, from Sir Austin Pearce, the chairman of British Aerospace, add that the content of that letter related to a meeting between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo, the chief executive of Brush Aerospace, and may well contain the recollections of the chief executive of British Aerospace about what transpired at that meeting.
There is no doubt that three and a half hours elapsed between a letter being given to the Prime Minister's office

and a statement being made to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which he said that he had explained his own position and that of the Government. Despite repeated questioning, the information that I have given the House was not provided by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In those circumstances, and as the Government will not deny that the letter was delivered at noon—I gather also that explanations of what he said have been given to the press on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by his press department—the least I can ask for is that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry comes back to the House today.
So as not to do any more harm to this debate, which I apologise for having had to interrupt, I request, in the presence of the Leader of the House, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry comes to the House after the Division at 10 pm to explain his remarkable conduct today.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I join the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in wishing not to impair this important Second Reading debate. I shall certainly look at the point that he has raised. Perhaps we could consider it through the usual channels.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury): The House has today been given the rare privilege at this stage in a Parliament of hearing a maiden speech. That maiden speech, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), was made with clarity and wisdom. Although I am sure all hon. Members regret the sad circumstances which gave rise to the by-election, they will, I am sure, feel that my hon. Friend will be an honourable and worthy successor to Harry Cowans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge said that we should concentrate on the causes rather than on the effects of crime and violence in inner cities. He urged us to cure the disease, not simply to address ourselves to the symptoms. We should bear the wisdom of that remark in mind when considering the Bill. I fear that the Government have not borne it in mind when presenting the Bill in an attempt to deal with the major problems in our inner-city areas.
This morning, Islington borough council published a survey on the level of crime in the area that I represent. It is a remarkable survey, drawn from detailed interviews with 2,000 households in the borough. It provides us with one of the clearest indications yet of the level of crime and the fear of crime in an inner-city area.
One of the survey's startling findings is that more than half of Islington's households have experienced crime in the past 12 months, and that 46 per cent. have experienced crime more than once. It shows that more than half of the women in the borough always or often avoid going out after dark because of fear of sexual attack or street robbery, that one quarter of the population always avoid going out after dark. It shows that more than one quarter feel unsafe in their own home and worry about their house being burgled, that the burglary rate in the borough is five times the national average, that the danger of burglary is 60 per cent. greater for black people than for white people and that women are 40 per cent. more likely to be assaulted on the streets than are men.
The survey reveals much more, but the interviewers also asked for interviewees' priorities for tackling crime. They were as follows, in order of importance: sexual attacks on women, burglary, robbery in the street, heroin, drunken driving and racist attacks. The overwhelming finding of the survey is that people are worried about burglary, robbery and assault, which people such as those whom I represent experience too often and with increasing frequency. The survey also shows that only 50 per cent. of crimes were reported to the police, and that only 3·8 per cent. of all crimes were solved by the police.
It is against that background that I shall consider the Bill. The survey reveals the problems facing my constituents and many thousands of people around the country. People are concerned about these issues. Crime and the fear of crime are going up. Confidence in the policing and detection of crime is going down. The Government ought to address such issues, but I do not believe that the Bill goes any way towards that.
The first and major charge that I make against the Government is that the Bill is, by and large—there are some minor points that I welcome—irrelevant to the issues and concerns that face many millions of people in inner-city areas.
Parts I and II are the specific provisions that concern me. They concentrate on the offences of riot and the control of demonstrations, meetings, assemblies and so on. Those parts of the Bill contain a number of new provisions for offences and powers for the police to deal with them. Many of the new offences and powers are unnecessary. The police already have at their command a wide range of powers that permit them to prevent a breach of the peace if they believe that is likely to occur or is occurring. There is little in the Bill that will improve the situation.
The Bill is an attempt by the Government to seem to be doing something about matters that worry many members of the public. In many respects the new powers suggested in the Bill, and in particular the new offence of disorderly conduct, are extremely worrying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), in his intervention on the subject of shopping centres in his constituency, both raised an extremely important point about which all hon. Members who represent inner-city areas are deeply conscious. Many tenants of council estates fear the congregating gangs of young people. The tenants are afraid to leave their homes and wander around their estates. That does not happen only on council estates, but that is where the problem tends to be most evident, in inner-city areas.
The Government have not got it right with their new offence of disorderly conduct. That offence will not tackle the problem on estates. That problem occurred on an estate in my constituency through three summers, causing considerable distress to many tenants. The problem has been solved under existing legislation. It was solved by close and concerted action and discussion between the tenants living on the estate, the local police and the local authority that owns the buildings. The problem has been solved by regular patrolling by the police on foot through the estate and along the walkways of the various blocks. Entry phones have been fitted in the problem blocks, and

there are regular meetings between police officers and tenant representatives to discuss the priorities of policing the estate and how that should be carried out.
The measures that I have described solved the problem. A new offence, which will catch all sorts of other considerations, does not need to be brought in to solve such problems. The situation does not require a new law that gives extra powers to the police in handling and dealing with members of the public. The situation needs good, sensitive, detailed policing, in concert with local people. That policy has achieved success on the estates in my constituency and I believe that it can achieve success elsewhere.
I am also anxious about the provision in the Bill dealing with marches, demonstrations and picketing.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman said how much he applauds contact with the police. Will he therefore take the opportunity to condemn those Labour-controlled authorities which are refusing to allow the police to enter schools?

Mr. Smith: I commend the work of my local authority, which has extremely good relations with the police who sit on the police consultation committee of which I am a member. That committee meets regularly and has extremely good relations with the police. I also commend the work which many police officers—not all—are doing in Islington in coming into contact with representatives of the local community. I believe that such contacts ought to be developed nationally.
The Bill's provisions about marches and demonstrations worry me with regard to civil liberties and the power that they give to the police. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was correct to point to the fact that the conditions that can be imposed on marches and static demonstrations under the Bill are entirely at the discretion of the police. The Bill gives powers to an unelected authority to determine the way in which democratic process and democratic protest can take place. I hope that we will be able to discuss those provisions in great detail in Committee.
I should also like to make a point that has not already been made. In London the power to ban a demonstration, which throughout the rest of the country will ultimately be in the hands of the local authority, will rest with the Home Secretary. No reference need be made by any police officer or the Home Secretary to a London local authority. I shall raise this point in Committee.
Having heard the speech by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), I am worried that there have been proposals, particularly by the Country Landowners Association, and, as I see from some of the briefing material for the debate, supported by the Association of County Councils, to amend the law on trespass to prohibit public entrance on to private land and to make that an arrestable offence in some circumstances. The proposal from the Country Landowners Association would catch a family of four out for a stroll in the country. The Opposition will keep a careful watch on such amendments if they come forward.
There are some welcome provisions in the Bill, particularly in relation to incitement to racial hatred. However, those provisions do not go far enough and the disparity between the sentences available under part I and those proposed for the racial hatred offence make one pause for thought.
I wish that the Government would consider more seriously the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to try to deal with the major problem of racial harassment which many black and Asian families face in their homes, particularly in inner London. My hon. Friend's proposed Bill would go some of the way, and I wish that the Government would be less dismissive of his proposals than the Home Secretary was when my hon. Friend intervened during his speech.
My fear about the Bill, and particularly about the part that creates the new offence of disorderly conduct, is that it may worsen relations between the police and the community. The problem with creating new powers for the police lies in determining how they will be used. I fear that the drafting of clause 5 will ensure that police officers will be tempted to use their new powers in much the same way as they used the old sus law. The Government have denied that that is the intention, but I fear that it may happen. If it does, the Bill, far from creating order on our streets and preventing disorder, may do the precise opposite.
Order in society and the prevention of disorder rest on the acceptance by all parts of the community of the fairness of the laws and of the police officers who operate the laws. I fear that the Bill will destroy the balance. We have heard much in the debate about the necessary balance between protecting the public from disorder and ensuring fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. Of course that balance must be preserved, but I think that the Government have got it wrong.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: It would have been wrong for the Government to refuse to act on the events of the past 12 months and not to produce a Bill to deal with public order. I emphasise the words "public order", because the Bill is not a palliative for crimes of dishonesty or for individual assaults; it is a Bill about public order.
No one who witnessed the riots at Tottenhan and Brixton, the events at the Orgreave coking plant or the activities of the pickets outside pits could say that a Bill of this nature is not necessary. Home Office Ministers have my full and unreserved support in bringing forward a Bill which is necessary to deal with the evils of our time.
I am not surprised that the Labour party, along with the Liberals and the SDP, has come out against the measure. The Labour party has for years failed to tackle the problems of public order. Labour Members constantly harp on the need to keep a balance between freedom of speech, freedom of action and civil liberties. I believe that in all the circumstances the Bill more than adequately preserves that balance.
Standing behind the statements of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Opposition spokesman, are the Bernie Grants of this world. Mr. Grant today said that the report of the Metropolitan police on the Tottenhan riots was a lot of lies. Such Labour politicians make it their business to criticise the police at every opportunity and to harass chief constables—the case of Mr. Anderton in Greater Manchester is a classic example and we see similar action by Lady Simey in Liverpool.
The Bill tackles the problems of today—the riots outside the pits, the riots in the streets and the riots at football matches. It is not before time that such legislation has been brought before the House. Five new offences are

created by the Bill and the law is codified. The offence of riot recognises for the first time the need to include violence towards property. That is important, and I am sure that all the Asian traders who had their shops wrecked in the Handsworth riot will be extremely grateful for that proposal.
My only criticism relates to the sentences for the new offences. I believe that the offence of violent disorder should carry a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment rather than five years. The maximum sentence for affray should be five years and not three years, and I should also like to see the maximum sentence for disorderly behaviour increased.
The offences have been created to meet the problems of today: riot to deal with the problems faced at Tottenham, Handsworth and Brixton; violent disorder to meet the problems of disturbances at static demonstrations and outside industrial plants; and affray to deal with the problems that the police face every Saturday night in tackling fights outside public houses and general disruption by those who have consumed too much alcohol.
Despite the criticisms made about the new offence of disorderly behaviour, I welcome it. It deals with a problem with which the law has previously not been capable of dealing. Those of us who represent constituencies with large housing estates and shopping centres know the problems faced by some of our law-abiding constituents who are intimidated by gangs of youths who do not actually do anything, but who frighten people and disrupt their daily lives. The new offence is the tool which the police need to deal with that problem.
I speak from experience. I opened the newspaper one morning to find that a riot had allegedly taken place at Skelmersdale in my constituency. When I investigated the matter, I discovered that the report had no foundation. A couple of windows had been broken and a small fire had been started in a health centre, but it never amounted to anything. People who are frightened by gangs of youths on shopping parades and housing estates will welcome the new offences and realise that, far from changing the fabric of society or diminishing civil liberties, they will be a useful adjunct to the powers that the police need to keep public order.
As a lawyer, I welcome the sensible alternatives included in clause 7(3). A jury in the Crown court will be asked whether it is satisfied that the offence of riot has been proved. If it is not, it may reach an alternative verdict on the second offence in the tier, violent disorder. Where the charge is one of violent disorder, a jury can reach an alternative verdict on affray. That is a sensible, modern solution to a difficult problem.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on including in the Bill the summary offence of disorderly conduct. If a jury is satisfied that someone's behaviour has been in breach of the law, but does not meet the standards laid down for other offences, it can still find that person guilty of the summary offence—something that is usually not open to a jury. That is a means of dealing with the reprehensible behaviour that brought the person before the court. I am sure that that sensible move will be appreciated by lawyers and juries throughout the country.
With the repealing of the common law offences in clause 9, we see the end of an era. Part I brings public order offences into the 1980s. We should welcome that rather than vote against it. Conservative Members recognise that that deals with the problems of today.


Yesterday's answers will not solve our problems. The public will realise that it provides a substantial answer to our difficulties.
The right hon. Member for Gorton levelled a great deal of criticism at the provisions in part II relating to processions and demonstrations. I believe that it is not unreasonable to ask the organiser of a well-prepared demonstration, whether static or otherwise, to notify, and make the necessary application to the police six days before the proposed date of a demonstration, especially as any demonstration is likely to disrupt the life of a community, particularly if it is to be held in London. Surely the public are entitled both to know and to have some say about the proposed route so that serious public order can be avoided, together with damage to property and disruption of life. Part II of the Bill is intended to deal with that.
Those who wish to organise a proper demonstration have nothing to fear from those provisions. If they have nothing to hide and do not wish to disrupt the life of a community or to incite violence, they surely cannot fear going through the proper procedures and applying to the police for permission to hold their demonstrations. Contrary to what has been said about the necessity for checks to be imposed upon the new police power, if an organiser is not satisfied with the restrictions imposed upon a demonstration, he can apply to the Queen's Bench division of the High Court for a judicial review. That will develop a body of authority and precedent to guide judges. The organiser can also call upon the existing body or authority that has guided chief constables exercising a similar power under the Public Order Act 1936.
My only criticism is that where a chief constable or local authority applies under clause 13 for a three-month order banning a certain sort of demonstration, the Bill should include the right to apply to a court for a review of the refusal. My hon. Friend the Minister can consider two or three alternatives—first, through the Crown court with circuit judges or magistrates; secondly, the High Court's judical review procedure; and, thirdly, the possibility of applying to the county court.
In view of the comments of Bernie Grant in Hackney, and my awareness, as a Member of Parliament representing an area on the edge of Liverpool, of the outpourings of Mr. Derek Hatton, who says the most peculiar things, we cannot rely on the judgment of some lunatics to decide whether demonstrations should be allowed. There must be a neutral procedure, with the law applied on a neutral basis, to cover refusals or conditions imposed on any demonstration.
I welcome the introduction of the provisions in part III to tighten the law to deal with the mean and despicable offence of racial hatred. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the sentences for that offence because I believe that they should be tougher.
Part IV deals with football hooliganism, and is probably the most important part of the Bill. It recognises that unless we do something as a community, our national game will be ruined. Incidents such as those last year at Millwall and Brussels must be tackled. Far from the provisions being a breach of civil liberty, they take the sensible course and will keep hooligans away from football matches so that they can no longer ruin the country's reputation and make the life of the communities around football grounds

intolerable. The punishment must fit the crime, so it is sensible to exclude the hooligans from football matches. By driving them away from the game, we stop them from offending the public and from bringing the national game into disrepute.
Despite the criticism levelled against part IV, I believe that its provisions are the only way to deal with hooliganism at football matches. We want football once again to be a game of which we can be proud and which will bring credit to our country.
The Bill is a realistic way to bring public order law into the 1980s. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers on producing a Bill that is realistic and relevant to this period in our history. I am sure that the public will recognise that the Bill is needed and that they will support it when it becomes law.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I do not intend to respond to the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), other than to speculate that some of his remarks may have brought him within the scope of clause 5 of the Bill.
This is not a public order Bill; it is about extending the control of the state over public disorder. Much of that disorder is created either directly or indirectly by the activities of the state. What must concern us in this Bill, or in any public order legislation, is the way in which both the central and local states define their responsibilities for maintaining order within society. That takes us to the central issue of the role of the state in civil society.
In their rhetoric, this Government more than any other have addressed themselves to the role of the state. Even before the Government were returned in 1979, we had long speeches about the dismantling of the strong state—the paternalistic state—and allowing people to be free from state control, state welfarism and state paternalism or maternalism. Since 1979 we have learnt that the withdrawal of the state from large areas of life and the pursuit of economic policies which mean that large sections of the population become marginalised result in disorder. The free economy advocated so strongly by the Government is followed by the creation of a strong state to maintain that free economy, as Stuart Hall has reminded us on several occasions. Therefore, we cannot separate order in civil society from social and economic disorder within the boundaries of the state or, indeed, from international disorder, which often leads to manifestations—I find the continental word better than "demonstrations"—by people against international disorder.
Therefore, we must ask whether we want to see the state assuming a more authoritarian, coercive role such as that set out by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West and other Conservative Members, or whether we believe it is possible to maintain order by the pursuit of a range of economic, social and legal policies that can result in the communities, classes and minorities within the state being able to relate to the state and not being coerced to do so. That is the central issue that most Conservative Members have been trying to avoid in the debate.
I go further than that and stress that often there is a tendency in such discussions for Conservative Members to view society in a very simplistic, indeed myopic, way. They tend to think of society as out there to be controlled by Government through their law and order policies. They do not recognise the essential interaction between the state


and civil society at all levels of society and the operation of the state. Nor do they recognise that extra-parliamentary democracy or direct democracy is as much part of our lives as the politics of representational democracy that we see here in Parliament. Therefore, when we start the process of enacting legislation, as we are doing tonight, which affects the rights of individuals or groups to express their grievances, we must realise that that legislation has an important effect upon the whole of our democratic process. We must recognise that the form of legislation with which we are dealing arises directly out of the Government's failure in other areas of their policies.
It should not be seen as surprising that the groups that have been most directly affected by the economic crisis that the Government's policies have generated are those who behave in a deviant way. The Bill deals with such people—young people whose opportunities have decreased, black communities whose employment and housing prospects have declined and who find that conditions in the inner cities have deteriorated substantially, the long-term unemployed and the unemployed in general, and in particular those who live in regions that have been hard hit by the Government's policies. In 1979–80, in paragraph 28 of its report on employment opportunities, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs stressed that there would be
serious social disorder if there were to be very high and chronic levels of unemployment, particularly amongst the young.
That form of disorder was exhibited during the dispute in the mining industry and in other areas. Industrial disputes are not created by pickets; they are created by the breakdown of industrial relations, and that breakdown is created by the pursuit of different objectives by the employees and employers. We must recognise that that is so in any serious consideration of social policy.
Therefore, the Bill must be seen as part of the political programme of the new Right, which, so far, is still in the ascendancy in the Government, although today's events may have an effect on that. It is part of the new Right's policy to roll back the state in every area of life except coercion and control. Members of the new Right believe in regulating the actions of those of us who go against the Government's line of policy, by increasing surveillance and control, and increasing the number of offences against public order.
One of the things that concerns me very much is the way in which, in such debates, all forms of dissent and deviant behaviour are lumped together. The Home Secretary did it again this afternoon when he seemed to link those who dissent from or demonstrate against Government policy with all other forms of criminal behaviour. Dissenters and demonstrators are lumped together as deviants and potential delinquents. There is a wrapping up of demonstrations and manifestations of public concern—which is what demonstrations are—with other forms of criminal activity. That has been done in the reports of chief police officers and many press statements by the so-called law and order lobby.
In the community where I come from, processions and assemblies are a regular part of our life. Under the Bill, a procession or assembly is potentially a serious disruption of the life of the community, but in the Wales and inner city areas that I know it would be strange if manifestations did not take place. Resistance is often part of the life of the community, because the community is often threatened by the policies of economic and social disorder.
I appreciate that some Conservative Members cannot take that. They should understand that in representing that point of view I am speaking for the community that I come from.

Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the Bill the processions to which he refers will have no problem, but the National Front march that is likely to disrupt a predominantly black community will be banned and dealt with suitably? Therefore, can he not see the purpose towards which that part of the Bill is directed?

Mr. Thomas: All of us who oppose the Bill have been arguing that powers already exist to control such potential disorder. We do not require this form of public order legislation to do so.
It concerns me that the definition and control of different forms of manifestations will be a matter for the police. I refer to clauses 11 and 14. For example, clause 14(2) says:
The senior police officer may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly any conditions which prescribe the place at which the assembly may be … held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it'".
When I asked the Home Secretary about that issue during his speech, he denied that it was a major qualitative change in the right of assembly. Surely, if the right of assembly is to be demarcated entirely by the police officers at the assembly, that is a major change. We know what is likely to happen with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We remember that the code of practice issued under the Employment Act 1980 referred to a recommended number of six people on a picket line, and it was for the police to decide, taking into account all the circumstances, whether the number of pickets at any particular place was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The experience in the mining industry dispute in South Wales was that the police took that figure as the maximum and quoted the civil law as though it had criminal authority. The same will undoubtedly apply to the discretion on numbers, lime, place and route. Those matters will be left exclusively in the hands of the police. If there is to be advance reporting of demonstrations, we need to look again at the possibility of it being on the basis of what happened in Scotland. It ought not to be on the basis that is provided for in the Bill. The police will become the arbiter of the right of people to manifest their views. This represents a serious change in liberty of assembly and police powers.
Other aspects of civil disorder are not covered by the Bill. It contains no provision to cover the kind of deplorable incident that took place this weekend in Carmarthen. On Sunday I visited Sue Pitman in hospital. She was injured by an employee of the private army, if I may so call it, or private security firm that is being used by Carmarthen district council to protect its public property against non-violent demonstrations—which may involve trespass—against the council's decision to implement the Home Office's policy on civil defence.
I am glad that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), is on the Treasury Bench, as he is the Minister who is in charge of this policy. His colleague and friend, Mr. Eric Alley, has been visiting Welsh local authorities trying to get them into line with the Government's policy on civil defence. Carmarthen district council stands against the nuclear-free policy of Dyfed. The result is that there have been manifestations of feeling in the locality. On Saturday that manifestation resulted in


serious injury to a non-violent person, Sue Pitman. I have known her for many years as a member of the peace movement. She would have shown no violence at all in her conduct at that demonstration. The police should have been there to maintain order and to protect the lives of people who were involved in a non-violent demonstration. If we are serious about public order, we need to be serious about the use of private security firms to protect property, as happened in Carmarthen.
The Bill does not represent a serious attempt to face up to the nature and causes of disorder in our society. It is part of the rhetorical flourish of this Government in defence of their economic and social policies. There is no need for the Opposition to predict what the result of that policy will be. It will create further disorder. The state will then seek further powers of repression. The spiral of repression will be increased. The victims will be those who are least able to bear the brunt of the Government's economic policies and the civil liberties which supposedly were part of the British liberal tradition when that tradition was still alive.

Mr. Robert Key: This Bill is essentially about the right to go about one's lawful business, and about the legal right of enjoyment. We have heard much about the desire for peaceful streets, which I completely endorse. It may be true that 80 per cent. of the population live in towns, but 80 per cent. of the land area of this country provides the working and living environment for the rest of us. Change must be steadily and carefully considered, as I believe that it has been in the preparation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier this afternoon that there has been no shortage of legal powers but that there has been a shortage of enforcement powers. Therefore, the common law has been revised and codified.
Hon. Members have said that people are frightened to open their front doors. Reference has also been made to the problems caused by alarm, harassment and distress. One of the Bill's purposes is to prevent the disruption of the life of the community. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) referred to the problems that he believes face the peace movement. As a direct result of the activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Cruise Watch in my constituency there has been a massive closure of traditional rights of way across Salisbury plain. Local inhabitants have thus been deprived of the age-old and traditional rights which they have enjoyed, despite the fact that Salisbury plain is an important military training area. Only the intervention of these outsiders has caused that deprivation.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) believes that the Bill's proposals are unjustified. His constituency is almost as beautiful as mine, but that beauty and tranquillity is not so threatened as it is in my constituency.
There are a number of areas of threatening action. I regret very much that the first comes from animal liberation and animal rights groups. I welcome the establishment of police unit co-ordination to pool information on dangerous and misguided acts. That is of direct relevance to the Bill. Militant animal welfarists, and others, increasingly trespass en masse on to farms, intending to cause injury to the occupiers and damage to

the property. No effective remedy is available to the farmer unless he can identify which person in the group caused the injury or the damage, despite the fact that all those present deliberately entered his land and property.
The difficulty under the present law lies in being able to identify the offenders. Often they come to farms under the cover of darkness or they threaten a farmer and his family. This happened recently in my constituency. It causes farmers to fear for their safety. Clause 4 will therefore replace section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936, as amended. It will make it an offence to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour in a private as well as a public place. This will be only of limited help. Similarly the new controls that will be available to the police concerning the imposition of conditions relating to demonstrations will be of assistance only in those very rare cases where a warning is given beforehand of the intention to hold a demonstration, such as an animal rights demonstration.
The Bill will have an immediate impact upon mass poaching and illegal hare coursing in rural areas. I have received a large number of representations about this from farmers and their families and from members of the public. Recently I received a letter from a farmer who pointed out that in general he tries to encourage the public to walk the footpaths, both public and private, on his farm, in the hope that while they enjoy their walk they will discourage the small percentage of unwelcome visitors from visiting their property. However, the problem with the mass poachers and the illegal hare coursers is that they frighten innocent people away to such an extent that a kind of no-go area is being created in parts of southern rural England. This is serious because of its economic implications for farmers. Farmers complain to me about the number of ewes that are becoming barren because of persistent dog worrying. Furthermore, a great deal of damage has been done to beef cattle because they have been chased by dogs. One farmer wrote to me and suggested that many of these people have no respect for people, property or livestock. He pointed out that farmers have had to mount special patrols to keep an eye on their livestock.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is a most interesting point, but I am not at all clear what part of the Bill is likely to meet the problem that my hon. Friend is describing.

Mr. Key: If my hon. Friend will have the patience that we showed when we listened to his earlier interventions, he will find out.
The farmer was concerned because three types of sporting activity were involved: the desire to blood lurchers on hares ready for deer coursing, placing large bets on the ability of individual dogs to catch hares, and the blooding of dogs for the track. I have pursued, as far as I can, all of these cases. My inquiries led me to the National Greyhound Racing Club. Its response was that there was nothing in my complaints which gave rise to evidence that these people came from greyhound racing, but that they may be connected with the sport of coursing which uses greyhounds to chase live hares. On the advice of the National Greyhound Racing Club I took up the matter with the National Coursing Club on 6 December, but I regret to say that I have not heard from them.
The reason why this is all important and of relevance to the Bill is that the police are worried about their inability, because of the state of the present law, to cope


with this problem. The chief constable of Wiltshire is reported in the Western Gazette on 10 January as saying that already there are reports of people being injured by trespassers. He suspects that it will not be long before somebody says that people have been killed by trespassers. I shall write to my hon. Friend about that and I hope that he will undertake to look into the problem of illegal coursing and mass poaching as a matter of urgency.
Another area of particular relevance to south Wiltshire is the Stonehenge festival. This is not a sudden matter. The Bill has been carefully prepared and is not a rushed or panic response. On 10 November 1983 I initiated an Adjournment debate on travelling people and the build up of the Stonehenge festival which has taken place over some 10 years. I am glad to say that that debate was replied to by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his previous incarnation in the Home Office. I said:
The law is a living thing and must surely change to meet the changing needs of society … Above all, the rule of law must be seen to apply to all the people all the time. If the Government fail to act now, we will see an unwelcome increase in the trail of disorder and unhappiness spreading across the country from Haverfordwest and Brecon through Glastonbury to Stonehenge, Greenham Common, Norwich and Leicester, to Cambridgeshire, Sussex and Kent."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 514.]
The Bill is a response which has been developing over many years and I welcome it.
In the community which faces these problems in rural Wiltshire there is much debate. In a recent editorial in the Salisbury Journal under the heading "Muddle at the Stones" the editor wrote:
the Stonehenge festival story will complete its transformation from a crowd of scruffy dope smokers making a nuisance of themselves in a Wiltshire field to a major civil rights issue.
He said that the way of avoiding that was to allow the National Trust and English Heritage to have a controlled festival on the old site and that that required the swallowing of pride and the recognition that thousands of young people want there to be a festival. He said:
It does not mean that they would be caving in to anarchy but it would be a way of reducing the influence of the Convoy.
That is all very well, but it shows the crucial misunderstanding of the problem of public order—that we can live in a peaceful society only when there is consent to do so on all sides. Unfortunately, in the case of Stonehenge there has been a lack of good will on at least one of the sides for many years.
In a report in The Times on 4 January 1986 the environment correspondent said:
one of the co-ordinators of the hippy convoy which annually visits Stonehenge for the summer solstice festival gave a warning of 'a month of aggravation in June'.
The convoy co-ordinator went on to say that
the festival would definitely go ahead in June on a larger scale than last year. There would also be a similar, smaller festival at the summer and autumn equinoxes and at the winter solstice. 'They will have four headaches instead of one'.
I must make it clear that every effort has been made to find a solution to the problem which will not involve the use of police or indeed the use of the law. Consultations on management versus confrontation were at an advanced stage two years ago. I visited California to learn about the American techniques of policing pop festivals which involved management, not confrontation. But it comes back to the fact that there is no reason why a considerable group of people should meet outside the law. The rule of law in our democratic society must surely be paramount. Many attempts have been made over the years to establish

an organised festival. Indeed, that has openly been said to be unworkable and unwelcome by the festival goers who are self-confessed anarchists and fellow travellers.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who I fought in the 1979 election, is not here. I had meant to tell him that I intended to mention that he told me that when he was leader of Camden council in the 1970s and dealing with the squatter problem in Camden it was with the same personnel who are now involved in this public disorder.
The problem of a controlled festival is that the peace convoy people have said clearly to me that even if there were a controlled and organised festival they would not attend it but still seek to have their own unlawful festival.
I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has been deeply concerned in the issue, and last June we had several talks about it. Ever since we first served together in Committee we have enjoyed friendly relations, but we fell out over this issue because he did not perceive the problem at the time that people were not willing to co-operate.

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Gentleman is giving a one-sided view. It was he who changed sides. Initially, he was prepared to say that there were many people on the other side, as he has now defined it, who were willing to co-operate and make arrangements. English Heritage under Lord Montagu are not exactly innocent in all this. In fact, there are many sides to the argument. If there were not so many sides God would not have invented lawyers.

Mr. Key: That precisely illustrates the problem. Up to last year English Heritage and the National Trust were prepared to see that festival happen. Therefore, it was the duty of all those who had any influence to try to make it happen with the minimum of disruption and law breaking. That was what we were trying to do. The only people who can do anything about lawlessness and trespassing are the landowners and the police. The Government do not have a direct role. It is the landowners who decide whether they wish to go to the High court and the police who have to enforce the injunctions. There was no question of my changing sides; it was a question of the ground shifting underneath us. That was the problem as I perceived it.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that many members of the Conservative party in Salisbury wrote to me to complain about what was happening, the style of policing and what happened on that day. He knows that because he has seen the letters.

Mr. Key: No, I have not seen those letters. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would show them to me. That is the first that I have heard of them.
The Bill will not deal with the problem of festivals. The offence of trespass is particularly difficult to cope with and the Bill tries to address some of the problems surrounding it.
I want to take to task the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who said that the Country Landowners Association had produced unacceptable proposals. The CLA has made representations on the Bill to the Government and it has consulted widely with various organisations, including rambling, mountaineering and other similar bodies. Unfortunately, those bodies have been in opposition because they have mistakenly seen


the proposals as an attempt to exclude members of the public from the lawful use and enjoyment of rural land. That is not the case. The CLA is not trying to prevent or discourage people from the lawful use of the land, and nor does its proposals relate to accidental trespass. In fact, the latest position is that the Association of County Councils, English Heritage and the CLA have produced a common position and they hope that they will be able to influence the Government to include a new clause so that an assembly, in the words of the agreed statement, of three or more persons, but, in the specific request of the CLA, six persons,
on any land which is wholly or partly open to the air, (not being a public place) shall be deemed to be a public assembly for the purposes of this Part if the assembly of those persons is without the consent of the person entitled to occupation of that land".
I do not believe that, on either side of the House, Members are against pop festivals or agaist the use of rural land by the majority of people. After all, some 75 pop festivals were held in the countryside last year, and 39 in London. The vast majority of them caused little trouble. History teaches us the folly of forcing opposition underground. We alienate young people at our peril. They have so much to offer and they are the future. However, that does not absolve us from upholding our responsibilities to the rule of law, which has evolved over more than 1,000 years.
Until there is reciprocal goodwill on both sides—I hope that goodwill will prevail—English Heritage and the National Trust will be obliged to seek the protection of the law, and the police will be obliged to enforce it. Therefore, Parliament must ensure that the law-abiding are properly protected and that law, which is a living thing, is properly updated and continues to guarantee the rule of law under which the majority of our people will wish to live and which protects their rights. I support the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile: As we debate the Bill we see on the face of the nation two particular expressions of which we should take special note. The first is the expression of disorder, which we see demonstrated by the rising level of crime. The second is that of frustration which we see in the rising level of protest against Government and the authority. In those two expressions we see a challenge of which we should take note. It is a challenge to reconcile certain freedoms, which all hon. Members should regard as important.
First and foremost, the public would rightly say that we must ensure the freedom to be able to walk our streets in peace and enjoy our homes in quietness. Secondly, the public would agree, rather more readily than many Conservative Members sometimes think, that we must struggle to maintain the freedom of members of the public, individually and in groups, from arbitrariness and injustice, whether imposed by the Government, the police, local authorities or any other form of authority.
The public hold dear, as a matter of tradition and expectation, the freedom to make peaceful and orderly protest against Government and public authority. They rightly hold dear their freedom not to be intimidated and not to be disturbed gratuitously by those who step far over the mark of acceptable public order.
It is beyond any doubt that the old common law public order offences need to be revised, codified and put in

order. However, there will need to be a great deal of improvement to this Bill before it can be said to achieve that end and before it can be said to achieve the balance between an acceptable level of authority and authoritarianism. Whereas the latter is never acceptable, I hope that all of us agree that an acceptable level of authority is necessary.
I turn now to what I regard as the most important part of the Bill, at least from the practical everyday point of view of the administration of justice. I refer to part I, which deals with such offences as that of riot. There is no doubt that the old common law offences were very much in need of rationalisation and reform. However, the Bill is a prolongation of the reliance of the police and the courts upon unspecified and, really, inchoate offences. Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts of England and Wales know full well that juries are often extremely reluctant to convict of such offences. They are particularly unprepared to convict of these offences where such specific charges as assault, wounding or criminal damage would have been available. They are also influenced by the penalties that they know are available—penalties are much better known to the general public than they used to be—if the defendant is found guilty.
It is counterproductive and much more than unhelpful to impose draconian maximum penalties which may well be out of proportion to the conduct complained of. One of my major misgivings about clause 1, which creates the offence of riot, is that there are forms of conduct which, if not trivial, might be regarded on a balanced view as relatively minor, and which nevertheless could attract in theory the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. No sensible judge will impose a life sentence for such conduct, but a jury does not know that when it is trying a case. For one reason or another the jury may think that because the judge's summing up is a little pro-prosecution, as it occasionally is, he will pass a tough sentence if the jury records a conviction. The approach shown in clause 1, particularly in the provision of a maximum life sentence, will create precisely that type of practical problem. Do we really want a maximum life sentence for an inchoate, unspecific offence?
There is a real danger that a person using minimal violence, for example a push or a nudge, will, under the terms of clause 1, be liable to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The definition of violence contained in clause 8 is circuitous, and of the sort that causes immense humour in the lecture room of first or second-year at law school, but does little to specify the type of violence that should be subject to criminal sanction and condign punishment.
Under clause 1, in certain circumstances a dozen lively students throwing tomatoes at an Education Minister visiting their student union just after a grant cut could be guilty of riot, and subject to a maximum of life imprisonment. A dozen mothers pushing or shoving at the chairman of an education committee outside a nursery school which is facing cuts could be liable to the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Those would be ludicrous consequences.
The most effective demonstration that I ever saw consisted of a large number of mothers with their prams and pushchairs walking backwards and forwards across the A41 trunk road between Chester and Birkenhead because the previous day a child had had an accident there. They wanted a pedestrian crossing, and their demands had been


ignored for years. If they were pushing their prams into a policeman of reasonable firmness who was afraid for his safety, they could be guilty of the offence of riot under clause 1.
The Government have the measure of the offence wrong. A life sentence should be available only for the most terrible crimes, but that is not what is provided for in the Bill. In a lesser way, violent disorder and affray, which are equally inchoate offences, give rise to the same problems, as each provides for a severe maximum sentence for the crime concerned.
Regarding the offence of disorderly conduct in clause 5, I do not propose to rehearse what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) read to the House from the White Paper. The Government have turned the White Paper's arguments on their head. I do not understand why, despite the careful efforts of the Home Secretary to explain. It is important for our busy and sometimes oppressed police force, and for the public, that we should keep out of the criminal calendar conduct which does not deserve a criminal sanction in a reasonable and reasonably robust society. I hope that we believe that we should be living in a reasonable and reasonably robust society. If so, we should recognise that clause 5 seeks to apply criminal sanctions to what should not be criminal offences.
I am concerned at the broad application of clause 5 to dwellings. It does not apply if both parties concerned are in a dwelling; but it applies, for example, to an argument over the garden fence between two neighbours who disagree about who should pick the apples from an encroaching apple tree. Surely that should not come within the scope of criminal law.
One of the key problems of public order is that the rights of peaceful protest and assembly, which, together with freedom of speech, form the basis of the right of political dissent, exist under current law only in the negative sense. There is, for example, no defined legal right to demonstrate or to attend a meeting, yet those freedoms are a crucial part of the relationship between the Government and the people. I believe that we shall never create a satisfactory law to deal with processions and assemblies until we state those rights in positive form in a Bill of Rights or something similar.
When faced with the one option offered to us—provisions of the present statutory type—we must ensure that the measure does not go further than is reasonable. Seven days' notice is too long. It is rightly said that spontaneity is sometimes the essence of a demonstration which is in the public interest. The right to apply for judicial review is an inadequate protection against an incorrect and unfair decision by the police because an application for judicial review under order 53 of the rules of the Supreme Court does not generally come before the court during the period in which one would want to have the meeting or procession. I join those hon. Members who have called for a right to apply to the county court judge in the local summary civil court for a review of the merits of the decision to prohibit a meeting or impose conditions. Certainly, a summary procedure is required to enable a review on the merits of a meeting to take place.
I shall make some final and brief points in an effort to let at least one Conservative hon. and learned Member participate. I welcome the provisions in part III, which deals with racial matters and harassment. Religious groups

have not been included. Some of the worst oppression and harassment this century in Britain and the world has been against various religious groups. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether, by a simple drafting amendment, religious groups can be included in part III.
I turn now to football exclusion orders. If it were possible to have a practicable system of membership cards, football ground exclusion orders would work well, but without them the system would be absolute nonsense. That type of law brings the law itself into disrepute because it is unenforceable. It may do a great deal for the false beard and moustache industry, but it will not do anything to protect us as it was intended to do. The sanction is imposed at the wrong time. Those who have been excluded but break the exclusion order and go to a football match will probably—this is human nature—behave well when they go to a match in breach of the exclusion order. Thus they may in fact be sentenced to imprisonment after going to a football ground and behaving well. The emphasis should be upon the court which deals with them for the original offence passing a sentence sufficiently severe to ensure that they do not do it again. I hope that when the Bill comes back to the House we shall see that this part has been radically altered if not removed from the Bill altogether.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): I am pleased to have a brief opportunity to welcome a Bill to modernise the law on public order. When it has been through a constructive Standing Committee, it will be a worthy successor to six years of useful law reform under this Government.
I am confident that the Bill passes the test which requires a balanced legal framework in which the police have the powers necessary to prevent and deal with public order, while freedom of speech and the liberty to protest continue to be safeguarded.
I wish to make two brief points. The first relates to marches and demonstrations. It is 50 years since the Public Order Act 1936 was passed, and it is fair to say that London today has become the demonstration capital of the world. On average there has been a major demonstration—one involving more than 100 police in attendance—every week over the past several years. The great majority are peaceful, but not all. If such demonstrations are to go off peacefully, they require careful organisation, not just for the sake of the public, but for the marchers. The Bill's proposals are sensible, because they merely require organisers to do what most reasonable organisers are already doing.
The power to impose conditions on static demonstrations or assemblies is a logical and necessary development in view of the disorders, not just during the miners' strike, but of the past 10 years. One can remember Grunwick and Warrington as well as the miners' strike.
We hear much from the Left about the right to work, but it is wrong that under the cloak of freedom of assembly those who truly wish to go to work should be prevented by threats to life and limb from an organised mob, with the police able only to keep a way open by linking arms and struggling against it, while those who plan and organise it, or who continue to take part, contrary to police directions, should be untouchable.
Disorderly conduct has attracted a great deal of attention in the press and during the debate. I believe that a skilful formulation has been achieved. The wording that the offender
has reasonable cause to believe that the use of the words or behaviour is likely to harass, alarm or distress another person
does not merely leave the matter to the police officer's subjective judgment, but causes the court to consider whether the offender knew that what he was doing was thoroughly unreasonable and unpleasant to other people.
It is right that we should seek to protect the elderly and the defenceless against cruel harassment such as occurs in too many flats and housing estates. It is not fair to expect such victims to go to court. Although there may be some risk that the offence could be used unreasonably by some police officers, the answer is not to deprive the community of the necessary protection or the police of the necessary powers. The answer lies, as is increasingly happening, in the good training of young police officers and the inculcation of and insistence upon high standards throughout the force.
I have been lucky enough—or unlucky enough—to be a member of the Standing Committee on almost every major law and order Bill during the past six years. I see the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which shows that it will be a pleasure once again if I am lucky enough to be selected for this Standing Committee. No such Bill arrives fully fledged on the statute book. All Home Office draftsmen will probably draft restrictively, on the basis that it is easier to give away than it is to recoup.
This is a well balanced Bill. It helps the maintenance of normal public order, while preserving the principle of peaceful protest. I believe that it will protect and enhance the liberty of our society as a whole. I wish it well and, after a constructive Committee stage, a safe path to the statute book.

Mr. Clive Soley: It is a pleasure to begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the newly elected Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who made a well-structured speech. I sat on the Committee that dealt with the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties with his predecessor, Mr. Harry Cowans, whom we all greatly miss. Harry made a great contribution to that Bill and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge will be welcome in Committee, should the Bill receive a Second Reading, to follow through the arguments that he put so well tonight.
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge and other hon. Members have said, the Bill must be seen in the context of the disastrous failure of the Government's law and order policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was absolutely right to link that failure to the crime rate. The Government were elected in 1979 and in 1983 on a get-tough policy to deal with crime. They got tough. Britain has more people in prison than any other country, except Turkey. However, the policy has been a disastrous, embarrassing and frightening failure for many people in Britain. The problem is not only one of rising crime. There have been riots of a number, nature and intensity that this country has not seen for more than 100 years—all that

from the law and order Government. That is what makes people so angry about Bills such as this, which have nothing to do with the causes of those riots. If the Government were serious, they would do something about the causes.
Some factors would have caused problems for any Government. The first is the move from the inner cities to the country and, to some extent, to the suburban areas. That move reverses the trend of the previous 100 years. What the Government have done that has been so wicked and that has had such a devastating effect is to rip the sticking plaster off the inner-city areas by making devastating cuts in public expenditure.
The Government have created long-term youth unemployment, which, with the ripping apart of the fabric of the social structure of the inner cities, is a deadly combination. What occurs is a rise in what I prefer to call the alternative economy instead of the black economy. It is an alternative to the existing economic system, which has broken down. In that context, people work while drawing social security benefit, they steal and engage in drug dealing, but the crucial factor is the style of policing. The majority of police convictions are obtained through information from the public. As that information dries up, the police must resort to more desperate measures to get evidence to obtain convictions. They do so by stop-and-search techniques, which have been used before, or by breaking into houses and flats, which has happened recently.
The police are not the cause of the problems, but they are frequently the trigger. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was right to quote the Police Federation as saying that the police do not want to be seen as "Maggie Thatcher's boot boys". We must do something to take the police out of the front line, but the Bill puts them right back into it.
Under the previous Home Secretary, the Government's response was to make even tougher noises and to try to use the police as a private army. He recommended hanging to his party conference, but was happily got off that hook by his Back Benchers, who persuaded him to vote for hanging for terrorists only. That was the most stupid thing for which to vote.
The present Home Secretary has a more sophisticated approach. He knows what some of the problems are, and he is trying to do an about-turn. There was that bizarre conference at Downing street last week, which involved two or three hours' discussion, with 50 people speaking for three minutes each. That was all they got. Many of the things said there were already known. Indeed, most of them were packaged and were being carried out by Labour-controlled authorities before their finances were cut.
If the Home Secretary believes in what he said at Downing street last week, I challenge him to give a guarantee now that any local authority that funds a crime prevention policy or a victim support scheme will not be rate capped or cut when that is taken into account. Let him give another guarantee that all the crime prevention and victim support schemes that were paid for by the GLC and the metropolitan authorities will be restored in full to all those local authorities. If they are not, they will become meaningless.
The Secretary of State's handout talked about 1·3 million houses needing special measures to help to make them secure from burglars. The cost will be about £500


million. Where will the money come from? Will the local authorities have to pay it? But they will be rate capped, so that is not on. The Home Secretary is in the deadly position of trying to introduce a policy in which he believes, but which the Prime Minister will not allow him to carry out. Unless he takes action similar to that taken by the previous Secretary of State for Defence, I suspect that the Secretary of State will become a meaningless and sad figure trying to deliver a policy which he knows is right but for which money will not be made available.
The Government's law and order policy has failed because of their savage attack on our economic and social structure. More seriously, the Government are now engaged in an equally savage attack on the basic democratic rights of our people.

Mr. Lyell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Soley: The hon. and learned Gentleman might shake his head, but he cannot have considered the detail of the Bill. He had better understand it, because ultimately it will affect his people just as much as it affects ours. The people will be angry about the Bill. The Bill says that the police will decide whether a demonstration or assembly should be allowed at certain places or along certain routes, and will determine the numbers, if they believe that disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation is likely. The use of the word "disruption" is most dangerous to democracy. We are talking about comparing the right to go shopping with the right to express one's feelings in a demonstration. We must consider that carefully.
One matter that troubled me greatly was paragraph 4·22 on page 27 of the White Paper, which said:
The Committee therefore suggested an additional test which would enable the police to impose conditions on a procession in order to prevent serious disruption to the normal life of the community.
The normal life of a democratic community involves the right of assembly and the right to demonstrate. If we remove that, we remove one of the roots of democracy.
Evidence was given to that Select Committee by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which expressed similar views and went on to say that the disruption could be the dislocation of bus services. We do not need demonstrations to do that. The Secretary of State for Transport does it far better than any marcher or demonstrator could. That is usually perfectly lawful, although the Secretary of State for Transport has been before the courts once or twice. Perhaps I should offer my services, as a former probation officer. We can all make one mistake, but two or three in a row suggest a tendency towards recidivism.
The point is that Walter Bagehot is alive and well. The concept of the efficient and decorative parts of the constitution, about which Walter Bagehot warned the country so many years ago, still applies strongly. We can bring all of London to a halt for visiting dignitaries from overseas or for the lord mayor's show, but people dare not go out on the streets to demonstrate their feelings, anxieties or anger about a political, economic or social policy. That is the difference, and that is why I say to the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) that the Bill is dangerous.
At times, we believe that the only part of democracy that matters is the representative part, when we come here and speak on behalf of the people. That is a vital part, because it gives the medium and long-term expression of

people's views, and sometimes the short-term, too, but when people are deeply angry about something they must be able to express their views, whether they relate to a school crossing, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, or to much more important affairs of state. The Government are closing a safety valve on democracy. If they go down that road they can make the police impose any conditions, and we might end up like the Poles or the South Africans. The people will reject that absolutely.
Government Members have ignored the fact that all the clauses make it clear that the most senior police officer present at a demonstration or assembly can decide the numbers and the route. That most senior police officer might be only a constable.
Clause 14 outlaws picketing, which can be regarded as a dangerous activity. A police constable, or the most senior police officer present, can limit numbers and move people away from an area. That means that the police can determine how people picket, how many are allowed to picket, and so on. The police should be determining whether an offence has been committed and by their presence deter an offence. That is what the police want to do.
It is interesting to see how the Government's policy has changed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) drew my attention to the Government's Green Paper on trade union immunities, which flies in the face of the Bill. On secondary picketing, it says:
to stop everyone from entering a given area would mean creating areas where, if only temporarily, the right of passage along the highway and the right of free speech for the purpose of peacefully communicating and persuading no longer applied. Moreover, whatever the details of the proposal, it would again seem that the services of the police were being enlisted or behalf of the employer.
The Government accepted that. Why do they not accept it now? Why have they gone back on what they said in their Green Paper and their response to it?
The police are being put right in the front line. What will happen when a police officer says "I think there are too many people here and I want some of you to go away"? That is emotive. People feel strongly. Several thousand people might be present, or only several hundred, and a police officer will have to tell some of them to go away. The Home Secretary says that the police can do that already. Perhaps they can, but the Bill gives legal power, backed up by sanctions, which will make the problem worse. That is why the Labour party is making it clear that we expect people to have a special, defined right to demonstrate and assemble.
If we do not have that, we shall end up before the Strasbourg court again. What will happen when people who want to demonstrate are not allowed to do so and they go to Strasbourg? I am becoming fed up, because we have a marvellous reputation under previous Labour, Tory and Liberal Governments for human and democratic rights. Today, Britain is brought before that court more often than any other country in western Europe. What is happening to our reputation under this Government?
Even if one accepts that the conditions are necessary—I am not convinced that they are—the case for the conditions being decided by the police does not exist, not even in the interests of the police. The police should not be dragged into the political arena, and they do not want to be. They do not want to decide whether a demonstration


should take place, which route it should take or how many people should be there. Such decisions should be made by an elected authority, if we decide to go along that road, so that those who are prevented from carrying out their democratic rights can complain to elected representatives. Such decisions should not be made by the police.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) told us that it was important to put riot in its proper perspective. He told us also that riot was an extremely serious offence. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery adduced some good arguments on that score. The hon. Member for Westminster, North seems to forget that under the Bill a riot can consist of 12 people threatening to fight one another at a private party. For that, the Government are proposing to introduce a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is probably right, inasmuch as the courts will not normally impose such a sentence. However, it will jack up—the hon. Member for Westminster, North, being an ex-prison governor, should know this better than anyone else—prison sentences, because for any serious offence of that nature a long sentence will be imposed.
I have a specific question for the Home Secretary to which I hope the Minister of State will respond. In answer to an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), the Home Secretary said that the courts would decide what were prescribed football matches. The Bill does not provide for that. We are told in clauses 29(4) and 31 that the Home Secretary will make the prescriptions. First, I should like to know whether my interpretation is correct. Secondly, will the Home Secretary be prescribing World Cup matches? Will they be included?
Like the 1936 Act, the Bill has been introduced theoretically to deal with racism. We welcome the provisions that deal with racism as far as they go, but they do not go anywhere near far enough. I am left wondering why the consent of the Attorney-General has to be given before a prosecution can be initiated. Racism is not an excuse for taking away the democratic rights of the people. There is a problem of racism in Britain—a desperately serious one—and it is one to which we must address ourselves. At times of economic distress there is a search for scapegoats, and scapegoats are often minority ethnic groups.
If we are to tackle that problem, the Government should initiate and support a campaign against racism. They should not produce a Bill whose overall effect is to undermine democratic rights while pretending that they are dealing with racism, when in fact they are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised an important argument when he said that the Government should do far more to deal with racism.
The Government are attacking basic democratic rights, dragging the police into the political arena and ignoring the very problems that have been the focus for the Bill. Until there is some understanding of the Socialist principle of more equity between the distribution of wealth and power, the riots that have broken out on our streets will continue to distort the fabric of our society. As the social survey trends showed recently, as the rich become richer, the poor become poorer and unemployment increases, we can expect more disorder and more crime.
As long as the Government go down the dangerous road of trying to use the police to cope with the consequences of a disastrously failed social and economic policy, so the problems of the police on the street will become increasingly difficult. As a result, the people will become increasingly frightened about their welfare. The sad feature is that minority groups will be the first to be picked on; they are in the front line when it comes to racism.
This is a bad Bill and it represents a lost opportunity. So many things could have been done to codify properly common law offences. So much could have been done to improve the law in this area generally. The Government have chosen to ignore the problem and to carry out an attack on the democratic rights of the people of this nation in a way that will undermine their rights of assembly and demonstration in a manner that we have not seen this century, and I include in that my comments on the 1936 Act.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): May I commence my response to this debate by referring to the elegant and eloquent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). I wish to associate with the remarks made by those on this side of the House and say that we do indeed carry a warm respect for his predecessor the late Harry Cowans. Harry Cowans was a much beloved figure here—a man of great charm and character.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge spoke well and spoke with experience and as a dedicated representative of that grand part of the world. As leader of the council in Gateshead, his knowledge is that of somebody whose roots are in his constituency. We wish him well and we look forward to his further contributions in our debates in the future.
The hon. Member used the phrase "prevention is better than cure." I suspect that it is in the context of prevention that we seek to discuss the Public Order Bill. Before turning to the personal contributions made, I would like to say that we considered matters in this Bill carefully and over a considerable period, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear this afternoon.
We recognise and expect—indeed hon. Members on all sides have stressed this—that these matters deserve the most thorough examination that Parliament can afford. I look forward to the detailed discussions in Committee. We are dealing here with issues which lie at the heart of a free society: with the rights of people to live their lives peacefully and free from violence and intimidation. We believe that we have got the balance right. But it would be wrong for me to pretend to the House that the Bill is perfect. Certainly our minds are not closed to improvements.
Widespread support has been expressed for the changes in the racial discrimination provisions and there has been considerable support for the exclusion orders. However, I notice that there are some problems. The rest of the Bill has received a less generous welcome from Opposition Members. In my view, most of their criticisms fail to address the basic purpose of the Bill, which is to prevent the traditional freedoms of assembly and protest from turning into weapons of intimidation and harassment.
This Government fully uphold the right of everyone to protest, to march, to assemble, to demonstrate and to picket—so long as these activities are carried out


peacefully. But we do not believe that these rights are absolute or that they cannot be and have not been abused. Hon. Members must ask themselves whether the right to march is a right to be exercised whenever one chooses, regardless of the effect on the rest of the community; whether the right to picket is a right to intimidate and obstruct those who wish to go to work; whether the right to assemble is a right to prevent others from going about their lawful business. The truth is that none of those rights is unfettered: they are not licences for the activists and the militants to impose their views by force on other people.
There has been reference to the White Paper. It contained considered views and refers to the longstanding origination of this measure. There are certain matters in it which are not to be proceeded with, and I should explain to the House what they are.
First, there was the proposed power to ban a single march. The police felt that if they had power to apply for a ban on a single march—for example, by the Militant Tendency, or CND—it would lay them open to accusations of political bias in an area where they already have to tread very carefully. At present under the Public Order Act 1936 they can apply only for a ban on all marches in an area, or certain classes of march. This ensures an even-handed approach—which I trust will commend itself to the House.
The second matter that we have not pursued is the possibility of enabling a police authority to recover policing costs from demonstration organisers when police conditions are broken. This was a consultative proposal in the White Paper, and the response was overwhelmingly against the idea. It would be difficult to calculate the costs involved. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is right not to proceed with that.
The White Paper also considered the possibility of enabling magistrates to bring in alternative verdicts, not simply in regard to public order offences. The majority of those who responded to our invitation to comment on the idea favoured the introduction of alternative verdicts in magistrates' courts and thought that they would be a major innovation. We have concluded, however, that if such action is to be taken it should cover the full range of offences for which alternative verdicts might be available. We have therefore decided against making any such provision in the Bill, as alternative verdicts could have related only to public order offences.
There has been a full and frank exchange of views today. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) made a robust speech and I am grateful for his comments about notice of marches and assemblies. We shall have to bear his comments in mind.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned picketing and people's rights. We fully support the right to picket and have no intention of interfering with the right of peaceful picketing. However, there is a difference between peaceful and lawful picketing and picketing which provokes violence and intimidation. Those who suggest that only mass picketing can be effective must be trying to legitimise intimidation and violence.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that there should be a statutory right to demonstrate. The Bill will not affect traditional rights to demonstrate peacefully and lawfully. It is a basic assumption in public order law, as with other law, that people are free to do something unless there is

a rule to the contrary. If we provided a right to demonstrate or to march, the presumption that the law gives other rights would be undermined. The right of peaceful assembly is in any case guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) mentioned judicial review, as did the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I accept that it is not always the speediest form of redress but it has worked speedily. In 1984, there was a ban on a Sikh march in London due to be held on a Sunday. The organiser sought judicial review of the ban from a High Court judge the previous Saturday morning. I believe that there is a good prospect of judicial reviews continuing to provide speedy redress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) reminded the House of the Bill's long gestation. It goes back to the events of 1981 and the Law Commission. He is right to welcome the powers concerning static demonstrations, which will help to provide information to the police and allow them to impose conditions of duration, location and time. He will recall that that does not include the power to ban.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) sought a new philosophy behind the Bill. The philosophy behind it is the desire to ensure that the rights of the minority to protest are preserved, but that the rights of the majority to live peacefully are also preserved. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) said that the public were greatly disquieted by television coverage of recent disorders.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the problems of sensitive policing and the need to organise such policing in communities and estates. I see that he is nodding assent. If so, he must agree that it is important to establish consultative committees which represent communities fully, to which the police can give their full attention arid with which the police can discuss various issues. I hope that such consultative committees will be established throughout London, especially in Labour-controlled boroughs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) made a substantial contribution to our discussions once again. He asked about appeals to the High Court concerning applications for a ban that are refused by the local authority. That is certainly something for the Government to consider, but, at the moment, as the Bill makes clear, we do not intend to do that. That is one of the clauses that ought to be considered carefully in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised the question of the protection of monuments in relation to the new offences contained in the Bill. I advise my hon. Friend that the powers to impose conditions on a static demonstration would apply to assemblies in public places in the open air. It would therefore seem that monuments open to the public would come within the ambit of the Bill. I hope that that will give my hon. Friend some encouragement.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery again referred to a Bill of Rights. That is not part and parcel of the measure. There are substantial arguments against proceeding along that line in a country that has not had the written constitution that he might prefer. I understand why


he seeks to ensure that in the discussions on the Bill he will keep a close eye on the various aspects that affect the liberty of the individual.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked me a direct question about exclusion orders. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will allow me to say this, I would admit that a correction should be made to that. The courts will not have discretion to decide the scope of the exclusion order, only its length. Exclusion orders will, of course, ban offenders from all prescribed matches. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government's intention is to prescribe football league matches, international matches and other matches involving league clubs. There is no present intention to prescribe football matches abroad. That should correct the impression given by my right hon. Friend.
Last but by no means least, I turn to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The right hon. Gentleman was in one of his most expansive moods and he managed to cover a vast amount in the vast amount of time that he took up. It was not one of his more exciting performances and I think that the old Gortonian club will be pretty disappointed and that that ancient brigade, the old Ardwickhamists, will, I am sure, be a little upset at his remarks. His speech did, however, contain two or three nuggets of importance.
The right hon. Gentleman raised an issue in relation to compensation. I advise him that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, clause 10 of the Bill, which refers to that matter, makes only a marginal change to the eligibility for compensation by bringing the test into line with the new definition of riot. In future, claimants will have to show that damage was caused during rioting by a crowd of 12 persons or more, rather than by the present minimum of three. The Government have not studied details of previous claims, but I believe that the majority of claimants who were compensated after the 1981 riots would still be compensated under the provisions of the new Bill. Now no new prosecutions for riot will have to be brought and convictions obtained before compensation is claimed. That is the position.

Mr. Kaufman: That is clearly a very important matter. Is the Minister saying that clause 10 provides that the payment of compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 or the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 will be available only where people are charged with riot under clause 1?

Mr. Shaw: That would seem to be the case in relation to riot in the conditions outlined in subsection (1). No doubt charges will be made and compensation sought under other clauses, but riot damage compensation is confined to clause 1. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, I shall be delighted to take it up.
The main part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and of the speeches of many other hon. Members, involved the new offence of disorderly conduct. The right hon. Gentleman devoted much of his speech to that offence. It appears to be common ground between us that we should seek to deal with anti-social behaviour. We know how much misery can be caused by gangs of youths to many people in our inner cities and elsewhere. There seems to be general agreement that we should look for an offence to cover such behaviour.
Many hon. Members have referred to the experience of their constituents and I take it that there is wide support for the new offence, although I noted that the right hon. Member for Gorton did not give a direct reply when his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) asked whether he supported the offence of disorderly conduct. The right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the concept, but not the offence as defined in the Bill.
We ought to find out exactly where the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go. I invite him to table amendments in Committee so that we can see precisely where he stands. I believe that we are agreed on the concept, though we understand the importance of drafting. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to make it clear to the House where he stands on disorderly conduct. We can certainly look at the drafting, but we must not resile from the need to describe in the Bill an offence that will bring substantial support and encouragement to many of our constituents.
The Bill has taken a great deal of time to prepare. It had its origins many years ago in the Law Commission report, in the events of 1981, in the discussions about what happened in Southall, in Lord Scarman's report and in the discussions that surrounded events at Grunwick, Warrington, Orgreave and Armthorpe. All Conservative Members, and I trust all Opposition Members, will agree that it was necessary to update public order law and to meet the immense public disquiet and the problems associated with public disorder.
It is clear that hon. Members are motivated by a need to bring more than a semblance of order and peacefulness to various activitities in our country. We are seeking to codify and update the common law offences, to bring them into a new form and to take forward many of the recommendations made, not least, by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We have also tried to ensure the rights of the minority in relation to peaceful protest, the expression of views and marches and assemblies and to ensure that the rights of the majority are not overruled by a minority.
That is why we are so keen to see that there is a constructive exchange of views between the organisers of marches and the police. That is why we have inserted in the Bill provisions that do not allow the banning of assemblies, but provide for conditions to be applied on the duration, location and numbers involved in assemblies. We are not talking about the removal of statutory rights. We are trying to ensure peaceable arrangements between those who want to protest and those who live in communities. We have established for the first time the need to look at offences against property as well as against persons during riots. We are very clear about our duty—it is to all citizens, wherever they live; it is to everyone, not simply a single group. We must ensure that their environment is not unnecessarily disturbed.
The Public Order Bill is the most important piece of legislation to be brought before this House for decades. It provides the context in which our democracy can live and develop without threat, intimidation, disruption and violence.

Mr. Walter Harrison: I have sat in the Chamber for two hours listening to the debate. I have discovered that a week is a long time in politics, and so too is a minute a long time in politics. I know that the Government are pressing—

Mr. Carol Mather: (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 289.

Division No. 32]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Ashdown, Paddy
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Foster, Derek


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Barnett, Guy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barron, Kevin
Freud, Clement


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, W. E.


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Godman, Dr Norman


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Boyes, Roland
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bruce, Malcolm
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Haynes, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ian
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoyle, Douglas


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
Janner, Hon Greville


Clelland, David Gordon
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kirkwood, Archy


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John
Leighton, Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Deakins, Eric
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Douglas, Dick
Maclennan, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Eadie, Alex
McTaggart, Robert


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Harry
Martin, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Mason, Rt Hon Roy





Maxton, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'dse)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nellist, David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Brien, William
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Gavin


Park, George
Straw, Jack


Parry, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Patchett, Terry
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Penhaligon, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pike, Peter
Torney, Tom


Prescott, John
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert


Redmond, M.
Weetch, Ken


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Welsh, Michael


Richardson, Ms Jo
White, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Robertson, George
Wilson, Gordon


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Woodall, Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rowlands, Ted



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Allen McKay and


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Ray Powell.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fletcher, Alexander


Bellingham, Henry
Fookes, Miss Janet


Best, Keith
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Freeman, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Galley, Roy


Buck, Sir Antony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Budgen, Nick
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Gow, Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gower, Sir Raymond


Chope, Christopher
Grant, Sir Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Greenway, Harry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gregory, Conal


Clegg, Sir Walter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cockeram, Eric
Grist, Ian


Conway, Derek
Ground, Patrick


Coombs, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Cope, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Corrie, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Couchman, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Cranborne, Viscount
Hannam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Harris, David






Harvey, Robert
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Merchant, Piers


Hayes, J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayward, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Heddle, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Henderson, Barry
Moate, Roger


Hicks, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hind, Kenneth
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hirst, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Holt, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Norris, Steven


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Onslow, Cranley


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hunter, Andrew
Parris, Matthew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pattie, Geoffrey


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Portillo, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Key, Robert
Price, Sir David


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Raffan, Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knowles, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lord, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N,


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Silvester, Fred


Maclean, David John
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Antony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Walden, George


Stokes, John
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitney, Raymond


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Woodcock, Michael


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Ian Lang and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Waddington, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on second or third reading.)

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 201.

Division No. 33]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Farr, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ashby, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Galley, Roy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Alastair


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chope, Christopher
Grist, Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Ground, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Conway, Derek
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Cope, John
Hannam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Harris, David


Corrie, John
Harvey, Robert


Couchman, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Cranborne, Viscount
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hawksley, Warren


Dorrell, Stephen
Hayes, J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney






Hayward, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Heddle, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Henderson, Barry
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hickmet, Richard
Moate, Roger


Hicks, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hind, Kenneth
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hirst, Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Holt, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Norris, Steven


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Onslow, Cranley


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Geoffrey


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pollock, Alexander


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Porter, Barry


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Powley, John


Key, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Price, Sir David


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Raffan, Keith


Knowles, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lord, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Silvester, Fred


Maclean, David John
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Antony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Merchant, Piers
Stokes, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John





Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Terlezki, Stefan
Watson, John


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Watts, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Wheeler, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitfield, John


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Michael


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Walden, George
Mr. Francis Maude.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dixon, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas, Dick


Ashdown, Paddy
Dubs, Alfred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John


Blair, Anthony
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freud, Clement


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hardy, Peter


Cartwright, John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clarke, Thomas
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clay, Robert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clelland, David Gordon
Haynes, Frank


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Coleman, Donald
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Conlan, Bernard
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Douglas


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunningham, Dr John
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert






Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, J. W.


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Loyden, Edward
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon John (Monklands, East)


McNamara, Kevin



McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Martin, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Maynard, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Michie, William
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, David
Wareing, Robert


O'Brien, William
Weetch, Ken


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Park, George
White, James


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Gordon


Penhaligon, David
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Randall, Stuart



Redmond, M.
Tellers for the Noes:


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Ray Powell.


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Westland plc

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Leon Brittan): I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this statement as I should like to clarify what I said earlier today, and to apologise to the House if what I said gave a misleading impression.
This afternoon in making my statement to the House I was asked whether the Government had received a letter from British Aerospace concerning the meeting which took place between Sir Raymond Lygo and myself on 8 January. I replied that I had not done so. In answer to further questions as to whether any member of the Government had received a letter from Sir Raymond Lygo, I replied that I was not aware of any letter from Sir Raymond Lygo to any one else either. There has since been an announcement by 10 Downing street that a letter was received there which the Prime Minister saw just before coming over to the House. It was not from Sir Raymond Lygo, but from Sir Austin Pearce, the chairman of British Aerospace, and was marked private and strictly confidential. Although I was made aware of the existence of the letter minutes before I left for the House I had not been informed of its contents, nor did I know whether Sir Austin Pearce was prepared for its existence to be made public. In view of the fact that the letter was marked "Private and strictly confidential," it was essential that I took great care in what I said to protect the strict confidentiality attached to it by Sir Austin Pearce, while answering questions accurately.
I understand that since I made my statement, Sir Austin has agreed with the Prime Minister's office that the existence of his letter can be disclosed, although not its contents. I had no intention of misleading the House in this matter, and therefore wished to come to explain this sequence of events immediately. If it is thought that I have in any way misled the House I apologise unreservedly.

Mr. John Smith: If the Secretary of State had made an unreserved and unqualified apology, we would have been happy to accept it. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the sequence of events. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) asked about a letter. The Secretary of State replied: "I have not received any such letter." That is quite true. There were questions from other hon. Members. At one point, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked about a letter from the chairman of British Aerospace, who happens to be Sir Austin Pearce. My hon. Friend finished his question by saying that the Secretary of State "should come clean."
The verbatim reply by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was: "If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I am not aware of any letters from Sir Raymond Lygo to anyone else either."
In case the Secretary of State seeks to draw a distinction between a letter from Sir Raymond Lygo and a letter from Sir Austin Pearce, I remind him that, later in the exchange, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) asked: "is the Secretary of State aware of any letter received by Her Majesty's Government from British Aerospace?" The matter could hardly be more clearly put. The Secretary of State replied: "As to the first


part of the question by the hon. Gentleman, I have already answered that point in reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover."
Any reasonable person would have accepted from that sequence of replies that the Secretary of State did not know of any letter from British Aerospace. He has told us today that he did know that such a letter had been received by the Prime Minister. I think that the Secretary of State should now say—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Resign."] Let us see how things develop. He should now say, "I am unreservedly sorry for having misled the House of Commons to the extent that I implied that a letter had not been received when it had been."
On the issue of confidentiality, I say to the Secretary of State that I appreciate that there might be a problem about a letter marked "Private and confidential". He should have said precisely that to the House—that a letter had been received which had been given on a confidential basis and that he could not take that matter further because of questions of commercial or other forms of confidentiality. That would have had the merit of being a truthful answer to the House of Commons.
Throughout the whole of that performance this afternoon, the Prime Minister sat in silence. She had more knowledge than any other hon. Member because she was the recipient of that letter and, no doubt, had read it before she came across to the House of Commons. In that circumstance, why did the Prime Minister not even lean across to the Secretary of State, who was within inches of her throughout the whole of the debate, and correct him if he was at some stage misleading the House? I ask the Prime Minister to apologise to the House tonight or tomorrow for what was said by the Secretary of State.
The House of Commons will not be satisfied that it knows the full truth about this rather confused matter until the terms of that letter are published so that they can be compared with the account of the meeting given by the Secretary of State this afternoon.

Mr. Brittan: At the outset and at the conclusion of what I had to say, I made it clear that if the opinion of the House was that my answers were misleading, I would apologise unreservedly. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) could at least give me credit for that. As it happens, I do not think that the answers that I gave bear the interpretation that he has put upon them. If he thinks that they gave that impression, I am content to apologise and withdraw. On any view, I have unequivocally set the record straight tonight at the earliest opportunity that I could. [Interruption] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he asked me to do so, I can assure him that I had taken the decision to do so before he made that request.
As for saying that the letter was marked "Strictly private and confidential", the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be well aware that in matters of this kind it is the existence of the letter as much as its contents that is strictly private and confidential and that the confidentiality is one imparted by the author of the letter and no one else.

Mr. A. J. Beith: How can the Secretary of State claim that it was not his intention to mislead the House when he now explains that he gave his answers, as he did, because he did not wish to

acknowledge at that stage the existence of a letter whose contents were marked "Strictly private and confidential"? Was it not clearly his intention to conceal from the House the existence of that letter? In pursuance of that letter was he given guidance by the Prime Minister before those exchanges, as he did not appear to be given any during them?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is not on a correct point. I had to tread the narrow path of not breaking the confidentiality of the chairman of British Aerospace and answering the questions accurately. I readily concede that in doing so I answered the questions strictly, but I answered them to the best of my ability. If I failed to answer them in a way that the House considers to be completely satisfactory I have indicated my readiness to apologise. I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Peter Viggers: May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that if the writer of a letter, for his own reasons and in his own interests, chooses to mark that letter "In confidence" it would be a breach of confidence for the letter's existence to be disclosed.

Mr. Brittan: That is the view that I took.

Mr. John Morris (Aheravon): The House of Commons is always generous to anyone who makes a fulsome apology. Does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not realise, however, that the way he has apologised tonight shows that he does not know the difference between evasion after evasion, after question after question was put to him; when he told the House that he was speaking only for himself and for no one else, when he said that there was no letter from Sir Raymond Lygo; and when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown)? In those circumstances, whatever the nature of the original letter, there was an hour of questioning available when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could have told him what the position was, and for him to have told the House when he should.

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures. I should have thought that what I said to the House is a completely clear account of what occurred, and expresses a readiness to apologise to the House for any misleading impression given. I should have thought that any attempt to extract more than that was motivated more by a concern to extract the maximum from this matter than a concern for the truth.

Sir John Page: Is my right hon. and learned Friend rather surprised that a private and confidentially marked letter should have had such a wide circulation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and apparently a large number of Opposition Members?

Mr. Brittan: I think that I had better not comment on that.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not the case that, although the behaviour of the Secretary of State has been pathetic, the behaviour of the Prime Minister has been much the more extraordinary? It was clear from halfway through the exchanges this afternoon that the crux of the exchanges was the question of whether there was a letter from British Aerospace. For the Prime Minister to


sit there for half an hour and allow the Secretary of State to mislead the House was a most extraordinary procedure. Although what the Secretary of State said may just be within the formal bounds of the truth, the margin is so narrow that we shall count our spoons quickly whenever they are together again.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes, he was."] I did not spot him. If he was there, he was there—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] I certainly apologise. I did not see him. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to appreciate any of the consequences of receiving a letter that is marked "Strictly private and confidential", whether that is a matter for me or for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he is quite unaware of the normal obligations that exist in society.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the highly personalised politicking that has been going on will in any way help the workers of Westland, the board of Westland, and those who depend on the future of this industry? Since the Opposition already have a full Supply day on Wednesday to debate this subject, and since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to speak on that occasion, would it not have been more appropriate had the Opposition waited until Wednesday, when my right hon. Friend would have communicated the contents of the letter, had they been material to the shareholders' meeting, which has now been postponed until Friday?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have moved a long way from Westland.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) so rightly said, an unqualified apology is received very sympathetically by the House. He has exposed himself by making this statement at least as a stranger to the truth. If I can remain in order by describing the conduct of the Secretary of State tonight, he has disgraced himself, but the Prime Minister has disgraced the House of Commons and the country by her silence this afternoon.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that commentary calls for any counter-commentary.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State accept that this is not a time for semantics or qualification? Does he not feel that his inglorious part in this long and unhappy chapter should come to an end?

Mr. Brittan: I accept neither the description nor the conclusion.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State recall that when I asked the question, I referred to any letters from the chairman of British Aerospace. In his answer, as was recounted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), he

said that no letter had been received from Sir Raymond Lygo. That was not the question that I asked him. The House will always accept an apology from someone who unwittingly misleads the House, but when a Minister, under close examination, knowing of such a letter, misleads the House, not unwittingly but deliberately in cahoots with the Prime Minister, he has no alternative but to go—and to take the lady with him.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in his description of what I did because he fails to give any weight whatsoever to the fact that a letter was received marked "Strictly private and confidential", the existence of which I was not at liberty to disclose.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that anyone who has listened to what he has said and has heard what has been said against him would accept that—with the exception of those right hon. and hon. Members who want to make mischief—he has given the House a reasonable explanation and an adequate apology?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This afternoon I asked whether it would not be more accurate—[Interruption.] to say that if the Secretary of State did not read the letter, the Prime Minister did. Was that not an opportunity for one colleague at least to say to another on the Government Front Bench what the truth was? Why did the Prime Minister not take that opportunity to save a lot of time and trouble for the House and to say quietly and gently what the truth was?

Mr. Brittan: The confidentiality attached to that letter was not something which the Prime Minister had any more right to waive than I. It was a confidentiality imparted by Sir Austin Pearce and it was for him to decide how he wished that letter to be treated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These matters will be discussed when the issue is debated on Wednesday. Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling about the termination of questions, but is it not in order to point out that a large number of hon. Members who were present this afternoon for the statement asked questions based upon the answers then given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? A few of us would like to find out whether his selective amnesia is permanent or only temporary.

Mr. Speaker: It would be impossible to have a complete re-run of what happened this afternoon—[Interruption.] Order. This is a very narrow statement and we have a full day's debate on the matter on Wednesday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No.

Seat Belts

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the continuance in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1203) be approved.
The purpose of this evening's debate is to enable the House to consider whether it wishes to continue the decision taken by Parliament in 1981 that drivers and front seat passengers in cars and light vans should be required by law to wear their seat belts.
The House will recall that the decision to make belt wearing compulsory was taken only after years of argument—

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear a word that my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Nor can I. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of this evening's debate is to enable the House to consider whether it wishes to continue the decision taken by Parliament in 1981 that drivers and front seat passengers in cars and light vans should be required by law to wear their seat belts.
The background, as the House will recall, is that the decision to make belt wearing compulsory was taken only after years of argument, both inside and outside Parliament, over the case for such a measure. As the controversy had raged so fiercely and had continued for so long, Parliament took the view that there should be one further opportunity to consider the entire issue again after an initial period and decide in the light of experience whether compulsory seat belt wearing should continue indefinitely. Hence the provision in the Transport Act 1981 that the regulations, under which compulsion took effect, would lapse automatically after three years unless this House and another place resolve that they remain in force. The three years expire at the end of this month and the time has therefore now come to take a decision. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, let me make it quite clear that the issue is simply whether to make the regulations permanent or allow them to lapse; there is no provision for modifying the regulations or renewing them only for a further limited period. I remind the House also that the law on the restraining of children in cars is not subject to the review procedure. It is not covered by tonight's debate and will continue in any event.
Although we are returning to an issue which has been discussed many times before in this House, there is, of course, one important difference between tonight's proceedings and all the earlier debates. On those occasions we could look at the issue only in terms of what people thought would or would not happen in the event of seat belt wearing becoming law. Tonight we can consider what actually has happened. Instead of merely speculating, we have moved into the business of observing and recording. Rather than relying on endless hypotheses, we have real facts to work on.
To ensure that all the relevant information is available to Parliament, the Government have conducted, as we promised, a comprehensive monitoring programme,

designed to study the practical effects of the belt legislation from every possible angle. The results are set out in our report published last October, which I trust all hon. Members will have studied. The report provides a full statistical analysis—carried out by departmental statisticians and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory—of seat belt wearing rates and the effect of seat belt wearing on casualty trends. It also includes detailed studies by hospitals and universities on the consequences of seat belt wearing in terms of the nature and severity of road accident injuries.
As seat belt compulsion continues to arouse strong feelings in many quarters, with particular attention focusing on the interpretation of all the statistical evidence, the Government thought it right that, in addition to our own monitoring exercise, there should be an entirely independent analysis of all the statistics carried out by expert assessors from outside the Government. We are most grateful to Professors Durbin and Harvey of the London School of Economics for undertaking this task. Their report was published as a clearly separated annex to the Department's own report.
What does the evidence tell us? First, it tells us that there has been instant and wholehearted acceptance of the seat belt law on the part of motorists. Up to the end of 1982 the proportion of drivers and front-seat passengers wearing belts never exceeded 40 per cent. Immediately the law came in, the wearing rate rose to around 95 per cent. and has remained consistently at that level, with no sign whatever of any fall off. This is a remarkable achievement, especially when we consider that in no other country with a seat belt law has the overall wearing rate even begun to approach the sort of level that we have here. Our own observations have been confirmed by the police, who report that the law has been almost entirely self-enforcing.
Why should the public adapt so readily to the seat belt law, when their previous attitude was no more than halfhearted? The most likely answer must surely be that the seat belt law came just at the right time to catch the tide of public opinion. The majority of people had, I believe, all but decided for themselves that wearing a seat belt was a sensible thing to do to reduce the risk of death or injury in the event of an accident. All the legislation did was clinch that decision for them. The law was accepted because it equated with what people judged to be in their own interests.
The next question must be whether people's faith in seat belt wearing has been justified in the light of experience. I will say straight out that in our view, the answer has to be an unequivocal yes. This is the opinion, not just of the Department of Transport, but of all those who have been directly involved in research on seat belt wearing. It is a view shared by virtually the entire medical profession, the police and all those working in road safety.
The evidence to support this conclusion is set out for all to see in the Department's report, backed up by the independent assessment of Professors Durbin and Harvey. The most striking facts are surely these: since the seat belt law took effect, there has been a substantial net reduction in road casualties—at the very minimum, an annual saving of 200 deaths and a further saving of 7,000 serious injuries. On a large sample of some 14 hospitals which are generally recognised as representative by the medical


profession, there has been a reduction of no less than 25 per cent. in the admission of car accident victims to wards, with a comparable fall in bed occupancy.
The 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries prevented are net figures which take account of changes in the number of rear seat passengers and pedestrians involved in accidents. No one making a proper study of the evidence could seriously argue that trends as clear as these are merely a coincidence. They can only be a direct result of the massive increase in the use of seat belts.
Some people, I know, are worried that there is a debit as well as a credit to seat belt wearing. The notion that seat belts encourage drivers to take risks they would not otherwise take has had a lot of attention from the media and from groups concerned with the safety of vulnerable road users, but, despite exhaustive analysis inside and outside the Government, there is no material evidence to support this allegation. The theory has been studied in this country—it has been studied throughout the world—but nowhere has it been in any way substantiated by the facts.
In any case, let me make it quite clear that the annual saving of 200 deaths and 7,000 injuries to which I referred earlier are net figures, arrived at after allowing for every possible relevant factor, including increases in casualties among certain road users. Seat belt wearing has to be seen as an outstanding success in terms of reducing casualties. Experience since the law took effect has confirmed the results of the earlier research conducted here and abroad. Wearing a seat belt substantially reduces the chances of death or serious injury in the event of an accident.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I was hoping to speak briefly, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. If there are questions to which I must reply, I shall ask leave of the House to do so.
With the case for seat belt wearing demonstrated so emphatically, the Government's view is that the right course must be to establish the law permanently. Given the evidence that we have, to abandon compulsion at this stage would make no sense from any angle.
There is still, of course, the argument that, however strong the case for wearing a seat belt may be, the decision should remain a matter of individual choice, rather than be enforced by law. I do not lightly dismiss that point of view. This Government are, after all, fully committed to minimising the regulation of people's lives, but I hope that even those for whom this argument had force earlier will be ready to reconsider their view in the light of experience over the past three years. I originally had considerable doubts about the principle of compulsion, but, in the light of the evidence that I have studied, I am persuaded that the law should be allowed to stand.
The House needs no reminder from me of the possible consequences of road accidents for the victim, his family, his friends and colleagues and the community at large. Experience over the past three years has shown that one way of minimising the risk is by the simple act of putting on a seat belt. Ninety five per cent. of drivers and front seat passengers are taking advantage of that facility. I hope that their decision to do so will be endorsed by the House on our first sitting day in European Road Safety Year.

11 pm

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) on her new appointment. We shall miss her and we wish her well and thank her for all that she has done for road safety during a long and successful stay at the Department of Transport.
I have supported the compulsory wearing of seat belts on every occasion that the issue has been debated since I was elected in 1974 and nothing that has happened since the Act was introduced three years ago makes me want to change my mind. Indeed, I should welcome an extension of the provision to cover coach drivers and those occupying the front seats of coaches and many commercial vehicles. One of the last acts of the hon. Member for Wallasey at the Department of Transport was to make compulsory the fitting of rear seat belts to new cars, though the compulsory wearing of them is not to be introduced at this stage.
I am worried about some of the statistics provided by cyclists' and pedestrians' associations and by the Friends of the Earth. They show an increase in the number of casualties, though, as the Under-Secretary said, the overall figure is still highly satisfactory.
I an not convinced that the increased number of injuries to cyclists has anything to do with the wearing of seat belts. It is suggested that people are driving with less care and that cyclists and pedestrians are at greater risk. I suspect that the fact that more people are riding bikes means that cyclists are at greater risk anong our increasing traffic problems. We should make better provision for cyclists, rather than change the seat belt law. The increased number of accidents involving pedestrians is worrying and needs to be investigated.
As we said in a recent debate on road safety, too many drivers are going too fast, not only on motorways but on A roads, and often in appalling weather. I do not know why that should be so, but it is a fact and the only way to deal with it is to provide greater police surveillance to catch those who break the law on too many occasions.
Medical opinion, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the AA and the RAC urge us to make the seat belt law permanent. I am certain that they are right and I shall vote accordingly, as will most of my colleagues.

11·4 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—I hope that she will shortly be my right hon. Friend—on her preferment.
It is a great pity that the question whether we should continue to be forced to wear seat belts or become criminals, which is an issue affecting more than 20 million people in Britain—and on which many hon. Members were persuaded to vote originally on the basis that it would be only an experiment and that ample opportunity would be given to us to discuss the issues—should be dealt with in a derisory one and a half hour debate at the end of a busy day.
Furthermore, there was no point in assuring us that we would be given an opportunity to express our view to the Government when no opportunity to amend the motion has been given to us. The motion was tabled so late that we had no opportunity even to table a token amendment. One is always particularly angry when one's own side does not quite play the game.
When listening to my hon. Friend the Minister, one would have thought that the matter was beyond argument. It would have been reassuring if the three-year experiment in seat belt compulsion had proved to have saved lives and serious injuries overall, but, alas, it has done no such thing. Even those of us most concerned about the loss of personal freedom involved in the nanny state forcing us to belt up might be obliged to concede that a saving of 200 or more lives and 7,000 serious injuries per year would be a reasonable enough return for the irritation, incovenience, and even the 7,000 prosecutions a year that the experimental law has produced.
Unfortunately, the claim being made by the Department of Transport has not been proved by the evidence. Yes, of course drivers and front seat passengers no longer go through windscreens with the same frequency—18 per cent. fewer of the former and 25 per cent. fewer of the latter have died from such injuries. Of course, injuries to neck, chest and legs may well be less serious. However, there has been an alarming increase in back seat passenger deaths of 27 per cent., of pedestrian deaths of at least 14 per cent. and of cyclists' deaths of more than 40 per cent. It would be naive to think that there was no connection between that and compulsory seat belts.
If there has been no increase in the number of car crashes since compulsion, how is it that so many more poeple are dying in the back seats of cars? The Department cannot explain that. If there is 3 per cent. less cycling traffic yet an increase of 13 per cent. in fatalities among cyclists over 19 years of age and of 55 per cent. among those over 69 years, it can hardly be BMX bikes causing all the trouble, as some embarrassed defenders of compulsion have claimed. The Department's experts explain those figures as a mystery or a coincidence.
Even if the 200-plus deaths and 7,000 serious injury figures were beyond doubt, if all that has happened is that instead of drivers and front seat passengers being killed, more back seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists are being killed, the case for seat belt compulsion begins to look less than convincing.

Mr. Greville Janner: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: This is a short debate, and I have already complained about the shortness of time. Therefore, I cannot give way.
The evidence is that the BMA, ROSPA and other reputable bodies, in their quite understandable desire to find a simple solution to the carnage on our streets, may be overreaching themselves in their enthusiasm to place reliance upon those figures.
To begin with, the contradiction between the total fatality statistics and the serious injury statistics has led the Government-appointed, totally independent analysts, Professors Durbin and Harvey, to say:
we are unable to provide a completely satisfactory explanation of the differences between the figures for KSI"—
that is killed and seriously injured—
and killed for rear seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.
They have chosen to depend rather more for their conclusions on the serious injury figures. Yet the BMA's own evidence to the Select Committee on Transport was that the definition of serious injury extended from a broken finger to total paralysis resulting in death after 30 days, that 70 per cent. of injuries to cyclists were not reported, that only one in four casualties classified as seriously injured are in fact seriously injured and that, therefore:

the existing definitions upon which records are based are misleading.
Bearing in mind that we were originally promised a saving of 1,000 lives a year, can that be a sound basis for relying on the statistics to prove conclusively that compulsion saves lives and serious injuries?
As The Lancet said on 11 January,
There will be regret that the evidence on deaths is not more one-sides and disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise.
There is also the evidence from other countries. If seat belt compulsion had been saving lives, it would have shown up in the statistics of other countries that turned to compulsion years before we did in the United Kingdom. But just the opposite has been revealed. A study of 18
countries has shown that the reduction in deaths and serious injuries in countries without compulsion was greater than in countries where seat belt wearing had been made obligatory and where the law was enforced. The Department of Transport commissioned an internal report to test the validity of that study. That report has never been published. The Department's yellow book, which has been provided in the Vote Office as a document for use in the debate, makes—rather strangely—no reference to the experience of other countries. All of us in the House know that, whenever Governments can rely on the experience of other countries, they do so. Why was there no such reference? The answer may have been discovered by the New Scientist columnist, Mick Hamer, on 7 February last year. I shall read some extracts from his article:
Evidence that the compulsory wearing of seat belts may not have saved lives has been hushed up by Britain's Department of Transport … An internal DoT report, which is still confidential, says that the introduction of a law making the wearing of seat belts compulsory in other European countries 'has not led to a detectable change in road-death rates' Indeed, the report says that legislation might actually increase injuries.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What report?

Mr. Lawrence: The article goes on to say:
Using a simple statistical model, the DoT estimates that the introduction of a seat-belt law 'was followed by an increase in injury rates'. The report says that 'in practical terms this probably means that the law will have no effect'. However, the report says bluntly that 'the results are not compatible with the department's "1,000 plus 10,000" estimates for front-seat vehicle occupants'.

Mr. Sheerman: What report?

Mr. Lawrence: This is a report that the Department has, which has not been released, and which fell into the hands, by routes that the hon. Gentleman will know only too well, of the New Scientist columnist. As the hon. Gentleman has not read the report, perhaps he will care to listen to more extracts from the article:
The confidential report estimates that there will be an increase of 2·3 per cent. in deaths among car users, although this is not statistically significant. It also estimates that the number of deaths among other road users could climb by 150 a year. The report, however, questions whether this result is statistically reliable … Again, the DoT found that making drivers belt up had no significant effect on injuries among car users. However, it did find a significant increase in injuries among other road users: 'The predominance of positive effects (increased numbers of injuries) is alarming.'
The report estimates that the number of injuries to pedestrians will rise by 11 per cent., and the number of injuries to other road users will also rise, by around 12 per cent. to 13 per cent. …
Eight European countries introduced laws making drivers belt up, from Finland in 1973, to Denmark and West Germany in 1976. The DoT estimates that the effect of introducing the law was to increase road accidents in every country.


Where is that report? If the New Scientist has seen a copy of it, can we not also see it? If compulsion has failed to reduce casualties anywhere else in the world, can the figures relied on for Britain be all that reliable?
Perhaps the most obviously unacceptable feature of the Department of Transport's claim is that the reduction in overall fatalities of at least 200 and of 7,000 serious injuries per year since 1983 following seat belt compulsion is due entirely to seat belt compulsion. What an extraordinary claim. Has no life been saved as a result of all the new safety devices in new cars, and has the number of injuries not been reduced? For all the road improvements, has there been no benefit in a reduction in the number of deaths or injuries? For the increase in police control cars, and the improvement in motor cycle testing regulations, has there been no benefit? Most surprising of all, despite the almost simultaneous campaign in 1983 against drunk driving, reinforced by the new evidential breath test machine, which has resulted in 38,000 more breath tests, 23,000 more prosecutions, not one saving of life or of serious injury has been claimed—nothing, nil, zero, nix, zilch. That is despite the fact that elsewhere the Department has claimed a 23 per cent. reduction in deaths during the drink-driving hours of 10 pm to 4 am against a reduction of only 3 per cent. in driver deaths outside those hours.
If the claims for the success of the anti-drink-driving regulations have been understated, or not stated at all, it follows that the success of the compulsory seat belt law has been overstated, and we are entitled to ask by how much it has been overstated. Is it utterly impossible that all of the 200 lives may have been saved by the drink-driving regulations alone?
Those hon. Members, whether for libertarian reasons or because we are suspicious about swallowing without challenge every unsubstantiated claim that is made by our masters in Whitehall and are not inclined to accept the exaggerated claims made for seat belt compulsion, owe a huge debt of gratitude to one man, Dr. John Adams of University College, London. He has patiently and relentlessly researched the subject and has done the work upon which I have been able to base this speech. In answer to the question: why do seat belts not save lives and injuries? he would, I think, reply that just as wearing a safety harness makes the rock climber more adventurous, so the safety of a seat belt may well make the driver marginally more reckless. It is accepted that improved car brakes do not necessarily achieve more than to make the driver brake later and at a faster speed. If that consumption of performance benefit applies psychologically to braking, why should it not also apply to seat belts?
Dr. Adams concludes a recent article that he wrote with these words:
If one trusts the accurate numbers (fatalities) rather than the large numbers (injuries), if one allows the reduction in drunken driving a reasonable share of the credit for the decrease in fatalities in 1983, and if one considers the evidence relating to other countries, the balance of the Department of Transport's own evidence tilts strongly in favour of the conclusion that there has been no net life-saving benefit attributable to the seat belt law, only a shift in the burden of risk from the best protected to the most vulnerable road users.
Those are the real facts and those are the real conclusions.
It may be that enough has been done to show that the three year experiment, having failed to produce any more

convincing evidence than the foreign experience has produced for the saving of life and serious injuries, means that we should be allowed to return to the voluntary wearing of seat belts, subject to the constraints to wear them that were imposed upon us by the insurance companies and the courts. However, such a reversion may be unrealistic in the present climate of opinion, and I do not ask for that. But are we not entitled to ask the Government to extend the experiment for a further period of time so that they may have the opportunity to produce more convincing statistics than have so far been produced?
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to withdraw the motion and to submit another in due course to extend the experiment for a further three-year period. That would not involve the dropping of compulsory seat belt wearing for the time being. An amendment that I would have tabled, had the Government allowed me an appropriate opportunity to do so, would have asked just that.

Mr. George Robertson: At a social occasion last summer in my constituency a young man came up to me and said that he had started to wear a seat belt because the law said that he had to do so, but that he had resisted it until then because he believed many of the arguments advanced by some hon. Members. A notable example of those arguments has been reiterated by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). However, this young man said, "Last week I was in a road accident and there is no doubt in my mind that as a consequence of that road accident, had I not been wearing a seat belt, I should be dead or so severely injured that I would not be out and about tonight. So I suppose I have to thank you, and the likes of you, by persuading me, through the law, to wear a seat belt, for the very fact that I am here and able to speak to you this evening." That spoke more eloquently to me than anything else that I have heard, certainly this evening, about what the general public believe has been the advantage of the law that Parliament passed three years ago.
Reference has already been made to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I, too would congratulate her this evening on her apparent elevation to the Foreign Office, even if the consequence of that will be that she will suffer the attacks, not of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), but of myself in another incarnation. We believe that it is being seen as promotion, and we wish her well because she has supervised this issue with great assiduousness.
I have a slight interest to declare in this debate. As chairman of the seat belt survivors club, I have been in contact with a large number of people who have had their lives saved and who have been saved from serious injury because over the years they have worn a seat belt in accidents that would otherwise have rendered them dead or infirm.
I admit that over the years I have become a zealot on this issue. I wore my seat belt for many years because I thought that it made common sense. Nine years ago this Sunday I was involved in a head-on collision with a Land Rover, and only as a consequence of wearing a seat belt was I saved from almost certain death. That certainly concentrated the mind and gave me an enthusiasm for the issue.
I have always believed, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the measure have believed, that this was a matter of common sense. We are reassured by the fact that over the three years since the law came in, what was a matter of great controversy, of almost endless debate in the House and repeated votes, with large majorities in favour, is now a matter of no controversy at all. The vast majority of motorists put on their seat belts now with no more thought than they give to making sure that the doors of the car are firmly closed behind them.
Ninety four per cent. of motorists are now using seat belts. The statistics that the Minister gave are eloquent testimony to the success of the measure. The Minister is a brave man this evening to come to the Dispatch Box and admit that he was one who was not convinced but has now had conviction forced upon him. He is not alone in that. One of the most vivid speeches in all the debates on the subject that I can remember was that by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who gave his personal testimony to his scepticism on the issue and the conviction that was imposed upon him by his experience as a Minister at the Department of Transport and the vivid recollections that he had of the casualty wards in hospitals and the sight of the road accident victims within them.
This is without doubt the single most successful road safety measure that Britain has ever seen. It costs nothing in civil liberty and financial terms, and it has saved so much. It has saved the suffering and the pain that goes with the road casualty figures every day of this life. It has saved our nation at least £130 million. More than that, it has saved countless numbers of maimings, blindings and cripplings, which are the real human manifestation of the road accident statistics that are represented in the savings that have been put forward over the past three years.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton made virtually the same speech tonight as we heard three years ago and in practically every other debate beforehand. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) says that the hon. and learned Member did not vote.
Some have chosen to support Dr. John Adams's theory of risk compensation, and this is an attractive and eloquent theory, put forward by somebody whose mastery of the statistics gives him a bogus authority. Is his theory worth anything? If it works in this case, why does it not work in every other case where preventative measures have been taken in road safety? Are we to abandon all sfety measures for people on the roads and in their cars simply because a questionable, flimsy, tendentious theory suggests that those who are belted have more confidence and start knocking down pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists? I am sure that the vast majority of the population would reject that theory, and they have shown that they have done so by the act that they continue to wear their seat belts.
Some have said that the numbers saved from death and serious injury are smaller than was suggested by the proponents of the measure when this issue was last debated in Parliament. That is so, but the estimates were never likely to be precise, any more than the statistics used this evening are precise. We know that if the usage rate were to go from 94 to 100 per cent., the chances are that the targets established on the guesses and best estimates would be met.
At least 200 more people a year are alive who would otherwise be dead, and at least 7,000 who would otherwise

be seriously injured are able to get around. We are told that there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in admissions to hospitals of front seat road accident victims, and a 30 per cent. reduction in hospital inpatients from road accidents. There has been a 40 per cent. reduction in major and minor brain injuries among those injured in car accidents. Are these not testimony enough to the valuable and life-preserving measure?
Three years ago, thanks to the skill and opportunity of Lord Nugent, a former Conservative Transport Minister, in the other place, this House had a chance to embrace this life-saving legislation. As it always has done, the House gave the measure its support. The evidence has been clear. People have been saved, and we must therefore consolidate that success.

Mr. Gary Waller: Some believe that there is no philosophical issue involved in this matter—in other words, if any measure such as this saves lives, it is justified. There are others for whom the matter is equally simple. They argue that it is entirely a matter of individual freedom, and that expediency cannot override principle. Finally there are those—among whom I count myself—who are perhaps the majority in the country, who accept that some element of freedom is compromised, but on the whole, are prepared to put up with such an impairment of their freedom if there is a clear safety benefit.
It goes without saying that if one is involved in an accident when wearing a seat belt, one stands a better chance of avoiding death or serious injury than if one is unbelted. The statistics show clearly that following the introduction of compulsory front seat belt wearing, more drivers and front seat passengers are surviving than before. Those who are blind to argument would say, "End of story", but those who are anxious to get at the truth will look at the position of other road users, because of the possibility that drivers will act differently if they feel more secure.
Those who want to pour scorn on such a hypothesis may do so by appealing to subjective observation. At first sight, that seems reasonable. Most people say that they do not feel that they are taking a greater risk because they are wearing a belt, and nobody has been able to detect whether drivers wearing a seat belt drive faster or more dangerously than they would if they did not. To suggest that such a difference would or could be detected is to distort the theory that driving behaviour is altered by perception of risk.
Unfortunately, fatal accidents happen every day, but every day many millions of miles are covered by motorists, and a fatality occurs once in every 1,000 million miles driven. The difference in behaviour only needs to be infinitesimal and, certainly, immeasurable to have an effect on the casualty rates.
More people may see the point of the argument, if we reverse the process. Take away a seat belt from a rally driver, and who would deny that he would drive more cautiously? If he crashes the result may be more calamitous, but is it not more likely that he will take great care to ensure that he does not crash, and will he not take a fraction of a second more when he encounters a bend, and brake a fraction of a second early to increase his chances of reaching his destination? Enough of theory. Let us see what has happened in practice.
Professors Durbin and Harvey, who were commissioned by the Department of Transport to carry out an analysis of the statistics, rely mainly on the figures for those killed and seriously injured, rather than on fatalities alone. Where the change in fatalities appears to support the risk-compensation hypothesis they fall back on the number of those killed and seriously injured. However, those figures are open to misunderstanding and misreporting.
A serious injury may require the casualty to remain in hospital for only one night. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory says that 59 per cent. of serious injuries to cyclists are never reported to the police, and the British Medical Association claims that the figure is even higher. Therefore, the figures of those seriously injured are open to extreme doubt.
What do Durbin and Harvey say when they find fatalities that are inconsistent with the view that seat belts bring about a safer environment? On page 51 of the Department's report, they state
The fact remains that we find the large proportionate increase in rear seat passengers killed hard to understand … We are reluctant to accept changes in driving behaviour as an explanation since these would be expected to lead to a corresponding increase in numbers seriously injured and there is no evidence of such an increase. We must therefore leave the sharp rise in the number of rear seat passengers killed as an unexplained mystery, at least until more evidence is available.
Had the House had an opportunity to extend the experimental period, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested, more such evidence could have become available. Regrettably, the House has not been granted that option.
In the two years following the introduction of compulsion, the increase in deaths among rear seat passengers was 18 per cent. Durbin and Harvey were also at a loss to explain increases in casualties among cyclists and pedestrians. When we examine the figures more carefully, we find that the increases did not occur for cyclists and pedestrians killed because they came into contact with heavy goods vehicles, but, because they were hit by cars and light vans, most of whose drivers were wearing seat belts. On page 31 of their report, Durbin and Harvey accepted that the evidence was unmistakable. They said
There remains strong evidence of a substantial increase in numbers of cyclists killed in accidents with cars.
As they pointed to an increase of about 40 per cent., that conclusion was unavoidable.
Even for those who accept all the arguments favouring compulsion, the fatality statistics for motorists must be a serious disappointment. In 1977 the then Labour Minister, Mr. William Rodgers, forecast that 1,000 lives a year would be saved. By 1982 the Department of Transport suggested a figure of 700 or fewer, and on this morning's radio a spokesman for the BMA was talking about 200. The Lancet admitted
There will be regret that the evidence on deaths is not more one-sided and disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise.
The fact that the Department's chosen statisticians, Durbin and Harvey, neglected to take into account was the concerted effort against drink-driving which also began in the first part of the same year, 1983, with the introduction of the evidential breath testing machine and the jump in prosecutions. There was a significant drop in the number of drivers killed who were found to be over the limit and

160—curiously close to 200—fewer drunken drivers died in 1983 than in 1982. Most significant of all, the number killed between 10 pm and 4 am, often described as the drink-drive hours, fell by 23 per cent. compared with a drop of only 3 per cent. at all other times of day. The Department's statisticians attributed all the savings to seat belts but the evidence points in a very different direction.
The Lancet said, referring to Dr. Adams, that it was
unhelpful of the Department of Transport to have suppressed an evaluation supporting his doubts.
More charitably, I would say that the 1981 evaluation of the experience of compulsion in other countries was not intended for publication. Nevertheless, it accepted Adam's finding of an increase in pedestrian injuries in every one of the eight countries which had introduced compulsion and described the statistical odds against achieving eight such positive results as one in 256. It also warned that the predominance of increased casualty rates for pedestrians was "alarming" and noted that
since pedestrians account for 20 per cent. of casualties in Britain and the law effect seems positive for them
in other words, casualties increased—
closer scrutiny is called for.
That seems to be a serious understatement.
Given that the evidence points to a seriously increased risk for non-motorists, it is not surprising that alarm has been expressed by representatives of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Motorcycle organisations noted that despite new safety legislation passed by the House and despite a proven reduction in drinking and riding, casualties among motorcyclists did not fall. The representative of the Pedestrians' Association on the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety drew attention to the fact that the organisation had ignored some of Durbin and Harvey's findings and the representatives of the Cyclists Touring Club and Friends of the Earth, who had originally favoured compulsion, also changed their minds when they saw the effects.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that those three organisations did not change their stance to one of anti-compulsion but merely said that they would be neutral and that they are only three out of 48 members of PACTS?

Mr. Waller: The three representatives to whom I have referred are now decidely against compulsion, having previously supported it.
One major motoring organisation quotes as fact figures for casualty savings which the most ardent pro-compulsion lobbyists would not dare to claim as proven. Another claims that at least the net effect is probably positive. In effect, an increase in casualties among pedestrians and two-wheelers is regarded as acceptable if there is a sufficient reduction in driver and passenger casualties. I hope that Ministers disagree with that attitude, but if some of the evidence produced by the Department itself is to be accepted the conclusion that in endorsing the regulations we accept a transfer of the burden of risk from the best protected to the most vulnerable is inescapable. If one examines the department's own evidence fairly it points, regrettably, in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whom I, too, congratulate on her new appointment, said in defence of compulsion—and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made the


same point—that she had received a number of letters of thanks from motorists saved by seat belts. The graves of those who died because some drivers took greater risks bear no distinguishing signs and my hon Friend the Minister will not be receiving any letters from them. Nevertheless, if one takes the fatality statistics as the only ones with which one cannot argue, if one considers the effects of drink-drive legislation which were ignored by the statisticians, and if one considers the international evidence, and if one asks why more pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists have died than one would have expected, only one conclusion is possible—that we should not approve the regulations today.

Mr. Roger Stott: It would be impertinent if the Front-Bench speakers took more than the minimum time in this debate, because this is a House of Commons matter. Each hon. Member must make up his or her mind whether to agree with the proposition. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time advocating my support for the points made by the Under-Secretary of State. That is not to say that I do not believe implicitly or fervently in what he said, but I believe that I should give other hon Members time to deploy their arguments.
I do not know what motivates hon. Members to walk down a particular Damascus road, but I note that the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Transport have decided that the evidence compiled by their Department has convinced them that the way in which they voted the last time this matter was discussed was wrong. I presume that they will reverse that decision and vote in favour of the continuation of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I do not say that in a malevolent sense; I say it in a spirit of good will to them, because I believe that they have now had an opportunity to look objectively at the overwhelming evidence that has come forward since the experiment.
I appreciate the efforts, work and commitment of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in all the road safety matters that we have discussed since she has been a member of the Government, especially since she has been concerned with transport. There are not many measures during the six years of the Conservative party's term in office with which I am proud to be associated. There is little legislation that I would commend to anyone. I am, however, proud to be associated with the 1981 transport legislation. The hon. Member for Wallasey deserves credit for ensuring that it reached the statute book. She is right in claiming credit for the lives that have been saved and the accidents and fatal injuries that have been prevented as a result of the wearing of seat belts.
It would be academic of me if I were to rebut the views of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) with a typewritten script from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety on the virtues of compulsory seat belt wearing. I doubt that I would convince him of its arguments. Many important people concerned with road safety support the council's claims, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Automobile Association, the British Medical Association, the Casualty Surgeons Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the County Road Safety Officers Association, the County Surveyors Society, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, the Motor Conference, the Royal Society for

the Prevention of Accidents and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I concede that the Cyclists Association and Friends of the Earth might take a different view and might disagree with the overwhelming evidence on the compulsory wearing of seat belts which the House has received during the past three years. I accept that in a democracy they have an absolute right to do that, in the same way as I accept that Dr. Adams has a right to proffer his analysis. Unfortunately, my record shows that the hon. Member for Keighley did not vote in the last Division on this issue. I refer him to Hansard of 28 July 1981 where I took Dr. Adams to task for his assertions that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would not be beneficial. Dr. Adams tilts at conventional windmills. I do not disregard that. Long may he continue to do so, but I believe that on this occasion, as on the last, his evidence is seriously flawed. He has not satisfied me—

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is an ordinary Member of the House.

Mr. Stott: He must satisfy me as an hon. Member. The fact that I am propped up against the Dispatch Box gives me no more rights than the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Dr. Adams has failed to convince me that what he is saying is correct. I do not believe that it is.
There is abundant evidence to support our case. The compulsory wearing of seat belts has saved lives and has prevented injuries to and the disfigurement of many car drivers. If the House of Commons is about doing anything it is about doing that. I rest on what I said a little earlier: this is one piece of legislation with which I have been proud to be associated during the past six years. I shall vote for its renewal this evening.

Mr. Roger Moate: Like the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) I feel a sense of pride at having taken some small part in the legislation which we enacted some years ago. It was not achieved without a great deal of battling over many years. That is why many of us feel a great deal of pleasure at, in the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he introduced the measure, the public's wholehearted and instant acceptance of the measure. In that we do not include my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but that would have been rather too much to hope for.
One of the most striking things has been, despite all the prognostications of the opponents, that the public have accepted the measure as a commonsense one that contributes greatly to road safety. That is in stark contrast to their forecasts at the time.
It has been suggested that my hon. and learned Friend made the same speech that he made several years ago. That was not a fair accusation because he has completely shifted the grounds of his argument. It is significant to recall the forecasts made by the opponents of the measure. First, they forecast that it would be unenforceable by the police. That was a common cry. In fact there have been a dramatic increase to about 95 per cent. in the public wearing of seat belts. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is big enough to admit that there have been no problems over enforceability. We were told that there would be massive resentment by the public against this measure which would cause animosity towards the police. That, again, has not happened.
My hon. and learned Friend significantly admitted that fewer people might be hurled through windscreens and that there would be fewer front seat deaths. The measures opponents were denying that some years ago. That was the point of their argument. They said that that would not happen. I am sure we can at least agree that there has been a significant reduction in front-seat passenger deaths. That is important proof of the sense of the legislation.
I find extraordinary the ground onto which the opponents have moved. In effect they are saying that this safety device is so effective that it makes people complacent and that therefore other deaths result. That is a strange argument and I hope that we do not try to apply it too often in the sphere of safety. If one carried the argument to absurd lengths, one might do away with brakes, because brakes make drivers more careless. If they had no brakes they would drive so much more carefully and fewer injuries would be inflicted on pedestrians and cyclists. We might do away with fire extinguishers because they make people careless about fires. My hon. and learned Friend is admitting that this safety device works so well and drivers are so confident of it that it increases their carelessness.
My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) started by admitting that there had been an inexplicable increase in rear-seat accidents, and deaths of and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists, and cited that as evidence that the wearing of seat belts causes injury to others. That is absolute nonsense. The facts remain as shown by a range of inquiries, including an independent assessment that at least 200 lives a year have been saved. My hon. Friend and others say, "We heard a figure of 1,000 a year". That is true, but my hon. and learned Friend will remember that, in those debates, many of us said that even if only 100 lives a year were saved, it must be worth doing.
My hon. and learned Friend's arguments about civil liberties, which sound strange when applied to the rules of the road and are quite inapplicable in that area, subside into nothing when compared with a saving of life on the scale about which we are talking.

Mr. Lawrence: What assessment does my hon. Friend give to the success or otherwise of the drink-driving regulations?

Mr. Moate: My hon. and learned Friend must remember that we are talking about net figures, and about increases in some other figures that could equally be attributable in that way. The figures have been carefully analysed by independent assessors. My hon. and learned Friend will not accept them in a month of Sundays, but other independent assessors and a mass of evidence say that we have at least achieved that worthwhile and significant reduction in casualties on the road. After all these years, I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend would start to see the sense of the argument. Even if he remains an almost lone and obstinate voice on this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not alone."] I said "almost".
The point is that the majority of the British public accepts this as common sense. If my hon. and learned Friend fears that the legislation causes more injuries to rear-seat passengers, I hope that he will follow the logic

of his argument and accept compulsory restraints on rear-seat passengers to help to reduce casualties on the road. But even then, I fear that his phoney arguments about civil liberties in this instance will always be more important to him than reducing the carnage on our roads.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: One could be forgiven for having a feeling of déjà vu this evening. Three and a half years ago, we spent a long time in the same company listening to similar speeches, and some of us spent many hours arguing the matter in the Committee that considered the Transport Bill. But, while listening to the speeches of the few remaining opponents to the measure, I was wondering why they feel so strongly after all the evidence that has been presented to us. This is not only the most effective road safety legislation in the history of this place, it is the most closely monitored. No legislation has been under such a microscope. It has been monitored by an independent medical committee, it has been sent by the Department of Transport to two independent statistical assessors at London university, and it has been assessed by every professional organisation involved in road safety.
When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), I was pointing out that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—which I have the honour to co-chair—has 48 members, 45 of whom support the continuation and the making permanent of this legislation. Of course, there will always be some disagreement in any argument. I applaud the fact that Dr. Adams, as he did three and a half years ago, sticks to his argument that the risk compensation theory is correct. After three-and-a-half years the evidence is against him. Every other authority, including Dr. Murray MacKay, London university, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, and everyone who has monitored the situation agree.
Listening to some of the arguments one would think that statisticians were opposed to the measures, not politicians. We must judge on the best technical and scientific advice available. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) mentioned the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Association which has changed its mind. The evidence is in.
Why do some people still oppose the measure? There is an element of guilt they cannot shove off. I do not wish to be unpleasant, but perhaps those who stopped the legislation from becoming reality for over 10 years have some responsibility for 2,000 people being unnecessarily killed and for 70,000 people being unnecessarily injured. That is a very heavy responsibility and I am not surprised at the guilt felt by the opponents of this measure.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley. I have the evidence. The Friends of the Earth are not against the measure but are neutral, as are the pedestrians' organisations. He said that I was misleading the House. I was telling the plain, unvarnished truth.
Several other hon. Members want to speak and I want them to have that opportunity. One of the nice things about the legislation was that it came from the Back Benches. It was not ministerial; it certainly was not Governmental, and it was not initiated by the Labour Front Bench. We stand firm, remembering that day three and a half years ago when a combination of the two leaders of our great parties and their Chief Whips not only put every obstacle


possible in our way, but decided that the vote should be on the night before the royal wedding on a one-line Whip after Ten o'clock.
In the last three and a half years we have seen one of the nicest things with which most of us have been associated. So many speeches in the House result in nothing. So many speeches result in legislation which damages our country rather than improving it.

Mr. Walter Harrison: I hope that my hon. Friend will identify which way the then deputy Chief Whip voted.

Mr. Sheerman: There was some enlightenment behind the Chief Whips.
This legislation has delivered life. It has delivered freedom from serious injury for so many people that it would be a disaster if we voted to reverse that process. We can go on to apply science to the problem of road accidents. This is what the measure represents. It represents people looking with intelligence at measures. We are not seeking apple pie solutions, but scientific solutions to a problem. There are many other ways to cut serious injuries and deaths on our roads. Let us build on this success and go forward. This is not the end of the road but the beginning of saving lives and preventing serious injury.

12 midnight

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I have in front of me briefs from the British Cycling Federation and the Cyclists Touring Club, both of which state unequivocally that they trust that we shall vote no at the end of the debate. I do not know how that can be held to be a neutral position. The words used are "Vote No", and such wording has never been neutral in my vocabulary.
A motor vehicle can be dangerous, and for that reason we license people to drive on the public highway. If they transgress seriously, we remove their right to drive. Otherwise, we assume that they are responsible citizens carrying out a legal activity for which they pay extremely heavily. It is no part of the duty of the House, or of any Government, to legislate to force people to do that which the House or the Government believe will be good for them and them alone.
The only person who can be helped, assisted or saved by a seat belt is the person who wears it. If we were debating measures controlling the design of motor cars and providing for safety for those with whom the motor car comes in contact—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) would listen instead of making remarks from a sedentary position. I did not interrupt his speech.
If we were producing legislation to provide measures to make the motor car more safe, when driven carefully, for other road users, it would have my fullest support. However, we are being asked permanently to infringe the right of choice of individuals who are responsible. If they are not responsible, they should not be allowed to drive upon the public highway.
It is an essential freedom that we should be allowed to choose to what extent we shall be mollycoddled. The seat belt has many disavantages and it is uncomfortable for many people. Even if belts are well designed, they restrict one's ability to turn round to see what is coming from

behind. It is not a universally helpful piece of apparatus. Unless it is clear that it helps others, there is no reason to impose it upon the long-suffering motorist.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Is it not abundantly clear that most accidents are not head-on collisions? The majority involve glancing blows. The person who is retained in the driving position has far more chance of controlling the car and helping the third parties to whom he might run into than has the driver who is not so retained. It is not a matter of helping the driver alone, who is able to control the vehicle because he is in the driving position and has not been projected through the windscreen.

Mr. Griffiths: It is not part of my argument to suggest other than that the driver and front-seat passenger benefit from wearing a seat belt if they are in an accident. The motorist has the element of safety that is provided by being inside a steel cage and he may benefit from wearing a belt, but there is some evidence, the statistical reliability of which it is difficult to assess—I speak as someone who taught statistics in the classroom—that there is a likelihood that there are more vulnerable road users who will be disadvantaged if a driver takes greater risks than previously. These road users are pedestrians and cyclists.
If the evidence suggested that other road users benefited from motorists using seat belts the case would be open and shut, but the evidence leaves a great deal of doubt. As there is a division in the House—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) feels strongly on the issue and there are others who feel just as strongly—and an element of doubt, I can think of no reason why we should have to make a permanent decision this evening.
Why can we not have an extension of the trial period, during which we would attempt to keep the other variables as constant as possible? Over the past three years we have had rapidly changing variables, which have been referred to by others, and I shall not rehearse them. Would it not be reasonable to mention, for example, the increase in the use of laminated glass for windscreens as having some effect on the number of drivers and front-seat passengers who are less seriously injured in head-on collisions? Why should we assume that that has had no effect? Better designed steering wheels and cockpits, improvements in brakes, tyre performance and in roads and the building of more motorways are all factors that could be taken into account and could account for some of the reduction in death and injury.
If it is so obvious that seat belt wearing is desirable, why is compulsion necessary? Is it suggested that drivers are so foolish that they will not do what is obviously sensible? Is it not rather the case that about half the motorists thought that seat belts increased their safety and the safety of others, and that about half did not? The half who did not now accept the law because we are basically a law abiding nation and because it is obvious to traffic policemen whether a motorist is wearing a seat belt.
I have no doubt that we could increase safety by insisting that every driver wears a full safety harness. Where do we draw the line? I suggest that we draw the line at letting sensible people who have been given a licence to drive on a public highway decide, so that we retain personal freedom and concentrate the Department's


efforts, and perhaps ours, on finding means of avoiding injury to people other than drivers and front seat passengers.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) down all of the devious routes of illogicality through which he has just meandered except to say that seat belt wearing has to be compulsory because compulsion made seat belt wearing increase from about 30 per cent. to 94 or 95 per cent. The argument that there should be a test period, during which, presumably, all advances in safety are to be held back while we establish the effectiveness of seat belt wearing, is utterly illogical.
It is interesting that the only arguments that have been advanced against the proposal have been made by the provisional wing of the lunatic fringe of the libertarian lobby. All seek, by querulous, quivering, specious argument to deny the paramount fact that, thanks to the three-year trial period, 1,000 people who would be dead if we had not made seat belt wearing compulsory are alive today. What is more, some 18,000 serious injuries have been avoided during the same period. That is the supreme fact that they are quibbling against. No wonder their argument becomes so specious and illogical.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I have been a committed supporter of the compulsory wearing of seat belts ever since I was involved in a serious accident in which my life was undoubtedly saved because I was wearing a seat belt. I was a new Member of Parliament and had not realised that I had been elected to the driving seat of a car rather than a seat in the House of Commons. I spent most of my time going up and down the A1. After a few months, I was involved in an accident, but my life was saved because I was wearing a seat belt.
One of the few achievements open to Back Benchers, especially under this Government, is that, with the benign superintendance of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who has now transmuted to other things, on which we congratulate her once again—it is a chorus tonight—we have eventually succeeded in getting seat belt wearing made compulsory. It was later than it should have been and much later than in other countries, but we did it. It was a major social advance, thanks to which we have a 30 per cent. saving in deaths and injuries to front seat passengers, a 20 per cent. saving in slight injuries to front seat passengers, a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of hospital admissions, a 39 per cent. reduction in brain injuries, a 53 per cent. reduction in facial wounds and a 40 per cent. reduction in lung injuries sustained by front seat occupants. Those are the achievements of the trial period.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the motion is passed, we should seek an assurance from the Minister that he will continue to monitor the statistics so that we may see the outcome of the measure? Secondly, perhaps the Minister will look again at the construction of the seat belts used in our motor vehicles.

Mr. Mitchell: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestions. There is much to be done in those areas and we should encourage that work to be done.
We cannot gainsay the huge statistical improvements that have been made, at minimal cost, because, for practical purposes, the legislation has been self-enforcing. To go back on making seat belts permanently compulsory would be to throw several tons of baby out with a small drop of bath water.
Tory Members cannot now revive all the libertarian arguments that a basic element in British freedom was the freedom to go head first through a windscreen and that that was the touchstone of British liberty. Therefore, they are driven on to the arguments of Dr. John Adams, of the department of geography at University college, London.
The logical conclusion of Dr. Adams's argument is that if being safe encourages people to take more risks—and that has not been proved; there is no evidence that people drive faster when wearing seat belts—drivers should be made unsafe, more exposed and less comfortable. They should not have brakes, and all the improvements in interior comforts and safety should be abandoned. The logical conclusion of Dr. Adams's work is that all car drivers should be riding bicycles, so that they are exposed to the environment around them and the safety factor will be strengthened.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has put those arguments in their true light. It is claimed that, internationally, there has been no improvement, but that claim is based on a starting year of 1973 and several countries introduced compulsory seat belt wearing in that year and some did so before that. The true starting year is 1970. Road accidents date for 21 developed countries over a 10-year period show that countries without seat belt laws suffered an average 6·6 per cent. growth in road accident deaths, while countries with a seat belt law enjoyed an average 17·8 per cent. reduction in fatalities. That is the statistical change resulting from a true measure as opposed to that taken by Dr. Adams in a manipulation of the figures.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety goes through Dr. Adams's other arguments to show how illogical they are. For instance, there is no statistically significant rise in the number of pedestrians, pedal cyclists and rear seat passengers who are seriously injured. There has been an increase in the number of fatally injured pedestrians and pedal cyclists, but the numbers are too small to be statistically significant.
We are driven to the conclusion that Dr. Adams's arguments are specious and would not justify the gain that has been made in the saving of lives and the avoidance of injury to drivers and front seat passengers.
It is disgraceful that the Friends of the Earth are sitting on the fence and that organisations such as the Cyclists Touring Club, the British Cycling Federation and others should oppose the extension of the legislation. This is not an argument between cyclists and drivers. It is an argument about how we save lives, and the legislation has demonstrably done that.
I welcome the proposal to make seat belt wearing permanently compulsory. I hope that within not too long a time we move from there to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts in rear seats.

Mr. David Mitchell: Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the former Minister of State in this area, and wished her well in her new responsibilities. I join with them in that.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) supported the measure, but called for more investigation into the increase in the number of accidents involving cyclists. I agree with him, and will see what we can do to further the discovery of the causes of such accidents.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) admitted that there had been an improvement in the figures for injuries to those sitting in front seats—a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), but he and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) thought that more back-seat passengers had been injured, and more pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured. They suggested that the reason for that might lie in the campaign against drinking and driving.
We do not know for certain the reason for the increase in injuries to back-seat passengers, but the most likely reason is that more people have been using back seats because they have not wanted to sit in the front and wear seat belts. There may have been a rise in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed, but the figures of 200 lives saved is a minimum net figure. It is based on the most pessimistic assumption and allows for the possibility that the increase in the number of injuries to rear-seat passengers, cyclists and pedestrians has been due to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Without allowing for that possibility, the annual saving of lives would be between 450 and 500. The net figure is a substantial 200 lives saved.
On the campaign against drinking and driving, the reduction in the number of deaths began in February 1983 when the seat belt law was introduced, not in May 1983 when evidential breath testing machines were introduced. Therefore, there is not the correlation that my hon. and learned Friend suggested.
Hon. Members have suggested that I have changed my view. Quite frankly, that is true. In the light of the evidence, I am wiser now than when I took another view. I would have preferred not to have found it necessary to apply compulsion, but I am persuaded by the evidence that it is a major advantage.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 25.

Division No. 34]
[12.15 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ancram, Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashby, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Barron, Kevin
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Thomas


Blackburn, Dr. John G.
Clay, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Clelland, David Gordon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cohen, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Bright, Graham
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Coombs, Simon


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Cope, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Couchman, James


Burt, Alistair
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)





Cunliffe, Lawrence
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David John


Dalyell, Tam
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Malone, Gerald


Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Martin, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Mather, Carol


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maude, Hon Francis


Durant, Tony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dykes, Hugh
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Merchant, Piers


Ewing, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Flannery, Martin
Miscampbell, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Foster, Derek
Moate, Roger


Foulkes, George
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mudd, David


Galley, Roy
Neale, Gerrard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Newton, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


George, Bruce
Norris, Steven


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Park, George


Gregory, Conal
Patchett, Terry


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pawsey, James


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Pike, Peter


Hanley, Jeremy
Pollock, Alexander


Hannam, John
Powley, John


Harris, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Harvey, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Hayes, J.
Rathbone, Tim


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Haynes, Frank
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Holt, Richard
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Key, Robert
Silvester, Fred


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sims, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, C. (lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Knox, David
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Lawler, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Livsey, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


McCrindle, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wallace, James


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)






Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Winnick, David


Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watson, John
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Woodall, Alec


Welsh, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitfield, John



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Wilson, Gordon





NOES


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Budgen, Nick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Redmond, M.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Forrester, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Waller, Gary


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Loyden, Edward
Mr. Christopher Murphy and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Peter Griffiths.


Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the continuance in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1203) be approved.

Oldchurch Hospital, Romford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Robin Squire: I begin in this inevitably short debate by welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), within whose constituency lies the hospital of which I am speaking tonight and who, as hon. Members will be aware, is unable, due to his rank on the Treasury Bench, to contribute to our proceedings. I know from conversations with him that he echoes everything that I shall say tonight in defence of a proven and well-loved hospital and local unit.
Perhaps there is an additional reason for welcoming my hon. Friend, because back in April 1980 he initiated an identical Adjournment debate which reads as well now as I am sure it sounded on the occasion. Sadly, this is the second time in six years that hon. Members in the relevant health district have had to come to the defence of the radiotherapy unit at Oldchurch. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend was successful in 1980, and I hope that I and other hon. Members pressing this evening for its retention will be similarly successful this year.
At the end of September last year the North-East Thames regional health authority published a report prepared by Coopers and Lybrand Associates, management consultants, which was issued, I stress, with the aim of improving the resources devoted to the treatment of cancer within the region. It is also important to stress that to date the report has neither been discussed nor approved by the regional authority. None the less, the central recommendation of that report is that the existing nine radiotherapy units within the region be reduced to five, four of these being in inner London and one at Broomfield, north of Chelmsford. Thus, the Oldchurch radiotherapy unit would be closed and we are led to believe by the regional officers that 90 per cent. of Barking, Havering and Brentwood patients would be expected to use Broomfield hospital.
The proposal to close that unit is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the community health council and to the district health council, from whose reports I am tonight drawing considerable information. It is unacceptable to Barking and Havering local medical committee and to Havering borough council. Perhaps most important of all, it is unacceptable to the people of Barking and Havering who may have occasion to use the hospital and the unit and who, even more than in 1980, have demonstrated their support by signing petitions against its possible closure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford will remember that in 1980 we received some 60,000 signatures to retain the unit. Over the past few months 130,000 people have signed the petition in support of retaining the unit. One might therefore say that if my hon. Friend's persuasiveness, backed by those signatures several years ago, was sufficient, perhaps I should not say any more tonight, because the argument is overwhelming.
I emphasise tonight why opinion against this proposal is so united. It flies in the face of logic. Half of the regional population now lives in the region of Essex, and the regional strategy since 1978 has reflected the decline of the population in central London and the growth of the population in outer London and Essex. Despite this, the


report proposes that four of the five centres should be in inner London, with only one centre for the whole of Essex. I can think of no better recipe for ensuring that a large number of people have to travel excessively long distances, and unnecessarily so.
Secondly, the original report was littered with errors—I have counted more than a dozen. The authority should be ashamed of that report, on reflection. It was wrongly claimed, for instance, that at Oldchurch hospital there was no planning computer or simulator. This is important, because the report referred to just such equipment to demonstrate the inadequacy of the treatment at Oldchurch hospital. However, both these pieces of equipment have been in use in the hospital for some time.
The estimates of the incidence of cancer in the North-East Thames area do not tally with those of the Office of Population Centres and Surveys, and, perhaps most important, the report's estimates of the times taken for journeys to the new centre are at best hopelessly inadequate, and in some cases simply untrue. This is, for many people, arguably the centre of the opposition of the report.
I have already said that it is expected that 90 per cent. of the people in the Havering and Barking district will be expected to travel to Broomfield. What will they face if they travel that way? The district health report says that if patients go by car from Barking to Broomfield they will take approximately 70 minutes in the most favourable traffic conditions. In the morning, late afternoon and early evening, travelling times can be very much longer.
By bus, people may go from Barking to Romford, taking 40 minutes, and then from Romford to Chelmsford—an hourly service—which will take approximately 55 minutes, forgetting the time that it takes to wait for the bus. The journey to Broomfield from Chelmsford is another 15 to 20 minutes, followed by a quarter of a mile to the hospital. The cost for that is £3·25 return. If they go by rail, simply from Romford to Chelmsford takes a half to three quarters of an hour, and then they have to get to Broomfield. If they come from Barking or Dagenham, they have to get to Romford first. The cost merely of going from Romford to Chelmsford is £3·80.
Hon. Members may wonder why I am quoting the cost, but pensioner constituents from Havering or Barking travelling outside London find that their concessionary fares do not operate, and they now incur an expense where one was not incurred before. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that that is a not unimportant factor for cancer patients, many of whom are elderly. The report specifically mentions, no doubt to recognise the excessive weight of travel, the provision of some 100 hostel beds at the Broomfield hospital. The implication of hostel beds that was made in the 1980 report has now been made a reality.
Hostel beds are no substitute for service at a local hospital near where one lives. I quote the Barking and Havering local medical committee, which says:
Cancer sufferers particularly require the support of their families as a very important adjunct to the high technology therapy provided by the Cancer Treatment Centres and this can best be provided if the patient, while undergoing active treatment, and after treatment, can live at home with family and friends around. This support cannot be maintained in a hostel setting several miles from home with difficult access by public transport.
It is not even equality of patient care.
Let us look, as I hope my hon. Friend will do, at the actual cost. I quote again from the community health council submission:
The actual cost of providing a six week course of treatment at Oldchurch is approximately £100 per week—a far more economic way than by means of hostel treatment plus the necessary treatment at a centre elsewhere.
All this is for patients who, by the very nature of their illness, are facing treatment that is debilitating and tiring and which, perhaps more than the treatment for many other illnesses, requires them to be treated close to where they live, rather than engage in unnecessary and lengthy transport. In the words of the report, Oldchurch hospital is the only centrally located regional cancer unit within the North-East Thames region. It is exceedingly well served by road and public transport, whether bus or rail, from virtually anywhere within Barking and Havering.
The hospital has a department which works closely with the neurosurgical, gynaecological and ENT departments, all of which are at present on the Oldchurch site, and none of which as yet exist on the Broomfield site. Hon. Members who were present at a lobby here a few months ago will remember how consultants stressed the importance of the link between such departments and the treatment of cancer service, not least because often patients who attend one department are found to have potential cancer needs, and vice versa. It is important that we take advantage of the existence of those departments on the present site.
The report states that attention should be given to the need to specialise for certain rarer types of cancer treatment. Hon. Members recognise that need, but let it not be at the price of requiring the large majority of patients who are suffering from the more common forms of illness to travel long distances. It does not have to lead to that. To suggest that specialisation requires the closure of local hospitals is a false and misleading theory.
Oldchurch is a much loved and supported hospital. The voluntary support which sustains it is considerable. Last Thursday the radiotherapy unit took delivery of a new £1,500 computer which was bought entirely from voluntary funds. That is a tiny fraction of the £45,000 collected by a prominent local personality, Mrs. Nellie Sims, from outside her local florist shop, all of which has gone to provide equipment or furniture for the unit. Those figures give an indication of the popularity of the hospital and the way in which the community supports the existence of the present unit.
Since May an appeal has been launched for £1 million to buy a body scanner for the hospital. The appeal is headed by Steve Davis—a well-known international snooker player. In seven months the appeal has raised £250,000, and by Easter those concerned expect to order the scanner. Those are tremendous sums and are a great tribute to the community. That would not happen if the hospital were not regarded as an integral part of the community.
Time will not permit me to go into all the alternatives. The district authority has submitted plans for an enlargement of the Oldchurch site, which should be considered closely as a more credible and reasonable alternative. I welcome steps to increase the funding for radiotherapy in the North-East Thames region in general, but not at the price of closing Oldchurch hospital.
I have two personal reasons for feeling strongly about the matter. My father-in-law has just finished a course of


treatment at the radiotherapy unit and, like all other patients at the unit, is full of praise for the care and attention which he received. I would hate to see him at 77 having to spend such a large amount of time each and every day for five or six weeks travelling backwards and forwards on long journeys unnecessarily. Similarly, I would object on behalf of all my constituents who faced a similar journey.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and I remember standing out in the cold on Budget day 1980 to receive the petition organised by, among others, a lovely and vivacious lady called Brenda King, herself a cancer sufferer. We undertook to do what we could to save the radiotherapy unit at that time and we succeeded. A year or two later, Brenda King died. She is commemorated by a stone at the hospital, but the best commemoration for her would be not just for us to see off the threat to our local unit once again, but for my hon. Friend the Minister and the regional health authority to find a way to remove the periodic threat faced by a local service which, as I hope that I have shown in this short debate, is needed, is well supported and must continue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on taking the opportunity of the first Adjournment debate of 1986, on a day which has been of considerable interest in the House, to raise a subject of crucial importance and concern not only to my hon. Friend and his constituents but to a number of other Members present today and their constituents. Following the exchange in the House on 10 December, when I answered a question from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), I am aware that the subject has caused a great deal of controversy not only in Essex but in north-east London. I also look forward to the Adjournment debate on Wednesday when my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) will be discussing the future of the radiotherapy unit at Southend. If, in the time available to me today I am unable to cover all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, I hope to do so in writing after the debate.
It is important to place the issue in perspective and I am grateful for this opportunity to do so as we must all take careful account of the concern caused by the North-East Thames regional health authority's review of cancer services. Some of the reactions in the region generally, and perhaps in my hon. Friend's constituency, have involved a certain amount of misconception about what is at stake. It is right that the issues at stake should be debated fully, but we must set the terms of that debate on a fair, clear and sound basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch sought to do in his contribution today.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Not on the Coopers report.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman may have his own views about that report, but I am responding to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornnchurch to today's debate.
First, we must consider the motives that led the regional health authority to decide upon a reveiw of its cancer

services. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that it was not a matter of looking for savings as a result of some financial straitjacket. My hon. Friend will appreciate the considerable expansion that has taken place nationally with the devotion of an increase of some 20 per cent. in real resources to the Health Service generally, supplemented in the coming financial year by an increase significantly higher than the projected rate of inflation. That is a reflection of the concern manifested by the Government and by the Department in providing adequate health services.
Cost-cutting was not the purpose of this project. The aim was to consider the way in which services, including radiotherapy, were provided for people suffering from cancer and to ascertain the methods available to the region to improve their quality. That was the mainspring of the exercise.
It is not for me to judge whether the report got the project right. I hope that hon. Members agree that setting such a review in motion was a justifiable venture by the regional health authority. The need was clearly set out in the regional strategic plan, which was published in July 1984. I hope that hon. Members agree that it must be right for regional health authorities constantly to take hard looks at the services they provide, or services will stagnate and we shall not improve patient care.
The proposals involved in these reviews are often unsettling and difficult to accept. We should as a principle recognise at the start that it must be right for the Health Service and the health authorities to debate these issues. There cannot be a sensible and constructive debate if we instinctively attribute reasons for a proposed change to a desire to save money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch recognises that.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitney: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman will always achieve that particular misattribution. I hope that he will be brief.

Mr. Dobson: I think that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have heard no one suggest that this exercise is intended to save funds. I think that the concern in north-east London and in Essex is that the exercise is based on an extremely shoddy, second-rate and inaccurate estimate of people's needs. No one is accusing the health authority of trying to save funds.

Mr. Whitney: If we have achieved acceptance by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that in this instance it is not a matter of saving funds, we have already made progress in the debate.
The report argues the medical case for concentrating specialised cancer services, including radiotherapy, in specialised centres. It believes that that would improve the quality of care and service provided to patients. Is the report right in proposing that the north-east Thames region needs five such specialised centres, compared with the present nine radiotherapy units? More controversially, if there is agreement on five of these specialised centres, where should they be located? I note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch about the concentration in London, leaving just one centre in Essex. The report maintains that its proposals would improve services to patients in the whole region.
These are intrinsically difficult issues. They are not made more difficult or controversial by the report.
One of the points that always arises is that of accessibility. Many of the services required by cancer patients can and should he provided in every district, as my hon. Friend said. As I understand it, the report is clear on that point. More specialised services cannot be provided, not because there are insufficient resources but because it does not make medical sense to provide them.
Services such as radiotherapy must be established to serve a relatively large population so as to attract sufficient patients to enable clinicians to sustain and develop their expertise. If there is too wide a dispersal of facilities and staff such expertise is not developed, and that is detrimental to good patient care.
The issue in the case of North-East Thames is not just the number of centres but their location. In an ideal world, everyone would have immediate access to all the services that they need. For the reasons that I have given, that would not be medically feasible, even if we had unlimited financial resources.
With specialist care we must draw the balance between poorer access to a more distant but potentially better service. Those are the issues raised in the report. It is not for me to judge the arguments for or against those or any other points. The position is clear. As my hon. Friend said, the report was put out to public consultation in September 1985 and the comments ended on 31 December 1985.
The health authority's working party has now been charged with reviewing the report, and its findings will be considered in die spring by the authority. I have no doubt that the points made so effectively by my hon. Friend will be taken fully into account when the authority comes to consider the report and the working party's findings.
Should the region agree to changes in the way that cancer services are provided either those recommended in the report or those arising after full consultation and

debate—there will then be, as my hon. Friend is aware, full local consultation in the usual way. If the proposals for changes or closures are opposed by the relevant community health councils the matter will be referred for a decision via the region to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The views of the Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA to any proposal to change the nature, size or location of the specialised care currently given at Oldchurch hospital will plainly be important. The RHA will no doubt pay close attention to them. The location of regional specialty services has however to be discussed on a wider basis to see what is finally in the best interests of all the region's patients. The effect on the hospital as a whole of any proposed closure of the Oldchurch hospital unit will need to be assessed. It would not be appropriate for me to prejudge the issue except to say that there are innumerable district general hospitals which do not have this service.
I am sure that the regional health authority will take full account of the worries that have been expressed, but I hope that my hon. Friends will convey to their constituents, who are anxious—I recognise the depth of their anxiety—that as I understand it this proposal was designed for and committed to the improvement of those vital services and to the development of specialised cancer treatment services within the region and the area. I hope that the debate will be carried forward on a firm understanding of the principles and without—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One o'clock.